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

[Blake]

@Chuck11

Or does “having biological reality” mean “being biologically real”?

I think you are having me on.

By your terminology, are sexes biological valid groupings?

Now I know you are having me on.

[Chuck11]

@Ibn_Warraq

It appears you haven’t read through this thread, since it’s been made clear that virtually the only person who questioned the idea that sexes are not “biologically valid groupings” was Rand who started this thread.

So yes, “males” and “females” are biologically valid groupings but “whites” and “blacks” aren’t and it is utterly moronic to compare “whites” and “blacks” to “males” and “females”.

You’re correct, I didn’t read through it. The reason I asked was because MrDibble was just telling me that “biologically real” and “biologically valid classification scheme” is equivalent to “taxonomically valid scheme by zoological rules.”

I’m sorry, no. When the argument is about whether race is a valid biological classification scheme, then taxonomic validity is the entirety of the biological reality to be considered.

Now, I know by zoological taxonomic rules “males” and “females” aren’t valid classifications. And I know that MrDibble knows this. So I inferred that MrDribble doesn’t consider “males” and “females” to be “biologically real” or to be “valid biological classifications,” at least, for the purposes of this debate. And so I wanted to check if others agree. If others don’t agree, if they think “males” and “females” are “biologically real” and “biologically valid classification scheme,” I would like to know why and, more importantly, what their definition of “biologically real”,“biologically valid classification scheme”, or"meaningful biologically" is.

But you probably already discussed this.

[Blake]

@Chuck11

It’s not specifically about “classifying human subspecies” but about “biological meaningfulness.” And the author doesn’t seem to equate
“biological meaningfulness” with “taxonomic validity.” Otherwise, how would the comparison between race and gender make sense?

Which has been precisely what everyone has been saying form the very first post.

THE COMPARISON DOES NOT MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!

You finally get it.

Since our current debate concerns classifying human subspecies, could you show me why “consistently matching,” as you mean it, is relevant?

This is like saying "Since our current debate concerns lighting fires, could you show me why “heat” is relevant.

Really, it’s exactly the same. If you don’t have heat, you don’t *have *a fire.
If you don’t have a consistent match, you don’t *have *a classification scheme.

From what I can tell, all that is needed is a “set of phylogenetically concordant” traits.

Wrong.

If you have even read the links that you yourself provided, you would see that this is just one of several necessary criteria.

So, yes, there needs to be consistency among some traits (hence a set), but not among all, if that’s what you mean.

For crying out loud. You must be having us on.

If the traits are not consistent with phylogeny, they are not phylogentically concordant. That is what freakin’ phylogenetic concordance means.

Could you give an example using a pair of non-human subspecies?

OK, we’ll start with something basic.

Lizards have lungs. Lungfish have lungs. Lemurs have lungs. Leeches do not have lungs. Loaches do not have lungs.

Lizards, Lungfish and Lemurs form a phylogenetic grouping. Loaches and leeches are not part of that phylogenetic grouping.

Therefore “Lungs” is a phylogenetically concordant trait. It consistently maps onto the phylogeny. The last common ancestor of all organisms with lungs is not an ancestor of loaches or leeches.

Specifically, could you explain in what sense the differences between human populations “don’t consistently match” but do between valid subspecies?

To use the example of Gorilla subspecies that you yourself cited earlier (and then refused to address when I showed that it totally discredited your position):D.
*Gorilla gorilla berengei *canines are larger than those of the other two subspecies. Simple as that. It’s a relatively invariant trait, all G. g. berengei animals have larger canines than the other subspecies. Canine variation between G. g. berengei and the other subspecies is much greater than that within any subspecies. Since we also know that 1) G. g. berengei inhabits an area not inhabited by any other subspecies and 2) G. g. berengei is genetically distinct and thus forms a unique phylogentic branch, we can use this as a definting charateristic of the subspecies G. g. berengei.

Contrast that with any human trait.

Epicanthic folds are not restricted to East Asians, they are also found in Polynesians, Australoids, Sami and Southern Africans. The diveristy of the epicanthic fold within Eats Asian populations is less than the diversity of the fold found outside East Asia. Many San and Sami have far more pronounced folds than many Koreans. The same is true of any other trait. There simply is not any trait or suite of traits that maps onto east Asian

East Asians do not occupy a range not inhabited by other subspeices. Populations of Classic East Asians are found from Bali to Kyrgistan, from Chittagong to Alaska. And there is no region that is only inhabited by East Asians. The Ainu inhabit Japan, there are various Australoid groups in SE China. There simply is no East Asian geographic range. Nobody can draw a line on the map and say “that is the east Asian geographic range”, everybody within that range is either East Asian or a hybrid between East Asian and another sub-species, and nobody outside that range is an East Asian. It can not be done. Either any East Asian territory will be occupied by people who are clearly Caucasoid/Australoid/Negroid, or else there will be people outside that range who are clearly east Asian. So there is no East Asian geographic range. In contrast G. g. berengei. inhabits a very distinct range. Within that range every single gorilla will either be G. g. berengei. or a (very rarely) hybrid between G. g. berengei. G. g. graueri and (and this is important) not a sigle gorilla exists outside that range that meets the morphological characteristics of G. g. berengei..

East Asians are not a phylogentic grouping. Populatons in Southern China are more closely related to NZ Maori than they are to people in Chinese Siberia. People in Chinese Siberia are more closely related to Scandinavian Sami than they are to people in Beijing. People in Taiwan are more closely related to Inuit than they are to people in Beijing. East Asians are not a phylogenetic grouping. The last common ancestor of 51% of East Asians is also the last common ancestor of *all *Europeans and *all *Australians and *all *Amerinds. In contrast, the last common ancestor of 95% of G. g. berengei was not an ancestor of any other gorilla subspecies. That common ancestor only gave rise to one branch.
I would appreciate you actually responding to the posts I made above, rather than simply ignoring them because they show that your own references utterly discredit your position. But I do thank you for introducing the gorilla example, since it highlights perfectly why human races are not valid subspecies

[Chuck11]

@Blake

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.

So here is an example of the term’s usage in context to subspecies delineation:

During the maximum glaciation the flora and fauna of Britain was scarce, and no species requiring temperate conditions existed there. When the temperature rose again, the islands were recolonised, mainly from two southern European refuges. One recolonisation route led from the Iberian Peninsula, and the other, possibly the most commonly used, from the Balkans (Hewitt 2000). Many species found in Britain today have been classified as subspecies, differing in some characters from their continental counterparts…

…With regard to the British P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus, this subspecies definition certainly fits. The British birds do share a unique geographical range, there are several phenotypic characters that differentiate them from the continental birds (even though they are overlapping) and the colonisation history of the birds in the British Isles, followed by at least a partial isolation from their continental counterparts, give them a unique natural history compared to the continental birds. (On the phylogenetic status of the British great tit Parus major newtoni and blue tit P. caeruleus obscurus.)

Do you think that the historic migration of P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus, 5000 years ago, was observed (by biologists)? That’s incredible. (“Unique natural history” does not mean, in this context, the “observation of organisms in their natural environment.”)

This is why I said: “consistent with the criteria, rules, and standards applied to many non-human populations.”

[Blake]

@Chuck11

Do you think that the historic migration of P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus, 5000 years ago, was observed (by biologists)?

:rolleyes:

(“Unique natural history” does not mean, in this context, the “observation of organisms in their natural environment.”)

That is exactly what is *does *fucking mean in this context. That’s *all *that it means.

This is why I said: “consistent with the criteria, rules, and standards applied to many non-human populations.”

And that is why humans can not have a natural history.

Now how about responding to the rest of the post that you just quoted?

Especially, the parts where your own references utterly discredit any notion that intra-racial differences in humans are small enough to allow subspecies distinctions.

[Chuck11]

@Blake

That is exactly what is *does *fucking mean in this context. That’s *all *that it means.

I like settling issues one at a time. Can someone else voice an opinion on this. Blake said: "For the third time, Natural History “is neither more nor less than the observation of organisms in their natural environment.” And then argued that human populations don’t have natural histories. I gave an example of the use of natural history in context to subspecies delineations.

…With regard to the British P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus, this subspecies definition certainly fits. The British birds do share a unique geographical range, there are several phenotypic characters that differentiate them from the continental birds (even though they are overlapping) and the colonisation history of the birds in the British Isles, followed by at least a partial isolation from their continental counterparts, give them a unique natural history compared to the continental birds. (On the phylogenetic status of the British great tit Parus major newtoni and blue tit P. caeruleus obscurus.)

Blake replied: “That is exactly what is does fucking mean in this context.”

I don’t understand what he’s saying. It seems obvious to me, as it did to Ernst Mayr, that human populations have unique natural histories (in the way P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus do).

If we can’t agree on this issue, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

[Blake]

@Chuck11

If we can’t agree on this issue, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Way to run when you are getting roasted dude.

How about we try it the other way.

How about you just explain how, since natural history is the observation of organisms in their natural environment, and humans have no natural environment, how the fuck natural history can be applied to humans? Either no human environment is natural (which is tautologically true) or, at best, all human environments are natural, and there can be no distinction between natural history and plain history as it applies to humans.

Alternatively, perhaps you could provide an example of someone referring to human natural history in a manner that is compatible with your usage of “phylogenetic history”.

Either one will satisfy me. Because if you can’t do either, you are quite clearly not using these words in a manner that anybody else is using them, and presumably you personally invented this usage, as you have done with so many other terms.

[Chen019]

@Chuck11

I don’t understand what he’s saying. It seems obvious to me, as it did to Ernst Mayr, that human populations have unique natural histories (in the way P. m. newtoni and P. c. obscurus do).

Well, yes. Races are rough reflections of evolutionary history, no? As, Lahn & Ebenstein point out:

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.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10.

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). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14.

(my bolding)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html

[Blake]

Hey, Chen.

You claimed that Indians and Lebanese immigrants living in NZ are not considered to be Caucasian?

Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary claim? Or are you, yet again, making shit up?

This is the third time i have asked this question.

And once again, I encourage this behaviour in you. The past 4 pages of this thread are now filled with evidence of you squirming away form these ridiculous claims that you have made.

There is no better evidence of how ridiculous your position is than to watch you being hounded for evidence for your claims, and being unable to provide any.

Keep it up.

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

I had a long reply, but it didn’t post. I’m not going to rewrite it. I’ll just summarize.

(a) “Taxonomic validity” is not equivalent to “biological reality,” at least given how philosophers of science use the latter term. If we are going to use the term differently, then let’s clarify what we mean.

Repeating yourself is not a counter-argument.

(b) You can look up the diagnostic criteria for tigers yourself (e.g.," P.t.corbetti, cranium size somewhat smaller than the nominate form P.t.tigris, with a relatively darker ground coloration and more numerous, rather short, narrow and rarely doubled stripes.") I’m not sure what you mean by “piddly differences” – do you mean that these types of differences are piddly? Or do you mean that the magnitude of differences are piddly when it comes to humans?

Both. And doesn’t address my points.

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

So the thread topic is:

Who gives a shit what the thread topic is? I’m referring to the discussion I was having, which isn’t quite the same thing.

Since our current debate concerns classifying human subspecies, could you show me why “consistently matching,” as you mean it, is relevant?

If you group people on one trait (say, some dentition pattern) and the Africans all separate out as a single group, but if you group them on another trait (say, skin colour) and they don’t but other groupings do, then “Africans” is not a valid grouping overall, only for (in this case) dentition. So if your taxonomy *is based on *skin colour, “African” is not a valid grouping. Ditto the set of “skin colour and kinky hair and flat noses”. See what I mean by “piddly differences” yet?

And if your entire modus operandum is to find only that set of criteria that lets you group a set you’ve already identified as African, we’re going to go :dubious: and :smack: and :rolleyes:

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

Specifically, could you explain in what sense the differences between human populations “don’t consistently match” but do between valid subspecies?

What, like tigers? I’ve already addressed why the existing tiger subspecies really isn’t where you want to plant your flag.

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

I like settling issues one at a time. Can someone else voice an opinion on this. Blake said: "For the third time, Natural History “is neither more nor less than the observation of organisms in their natural environment.” And then argued that human populations don’t have natural histories.

Since “natural environment” is defined in contrast to the human environment (“without massive human intervention”, “not originating from human activity.”), I can see what Blake means. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s the right way to do things, but that is how “natural environment” is considered for now.

[brazil84]

@Blake

Which in no way demonstrates the validity of the group.

Assuming that’s true, you need to take that up with Whambulance since he is the one who attempted to draw the negligible/profound distinction.

Of course, I have no idea how to demonstrate the “validity of the group” by your standards.

I asked you earlier whether a classification scheme is scientifically invalid if it fails your 95/5 test. You refuse to answer this question.

[Blake]

@brazil84

Assuming that’s true, you need to take that up with Whambulance since he is the one who attempted to draw the negligible/profound distinction.

A distinction that your assertion goes no way to addressing.

Of course, I have no idea how to demonstrate the “validity of the group” by your standards.

After 10 pages if you still don’t understand “Objective and logical” then there is no chance you are ever going understand. Everyone else gets it. Even Chen.

I asked you earlier whether a classification scheme is scientifically invalid if it fails your 95/5 test. You refuse to answer this question.

Nonsense.

[Chuck11]

@Blake

Way to run when you are getting roasted dude.

How about we try it the other way.

How about you just explain how, since natural history is the observation of organisms in their natural environment, and humans have no natural environment, how the fuck natural history can be applied to humans? Either no human environment is natural (which is tautologically true) or, at best, all human environments are natural, and there can be no distinction between natural history and plain history as it applies to humans.

…
Blake,

“Natural history” in “a unique natural history” is used as a noun; here it refers to a property of the said members. Now, what properties constitute “natural histories”?

Here are the definitions which you keep citing:

Modern definitions from biologists often focus on the scientific study of individual organisms in their environment, as seen in this definition by M. Bates: "Natural history is the study of animals and Plants - of organisms. … I like to think, then, of natural history as the study of life at the level of the individual - of what plants and animals do, how they react to each other and their environment, how they are organized into larger groupings like populations and communities"[6] and this more recent definition by D.S. Wilcove and T. Eisner: “The close observation of organisms—their origins, their evolution, their behavior, and their relationships with other species”.[7] This focus on organisms in their environment is also echoed by H.W. Greene and J.B. Losos: “Natural history focuses on where organisms are and what they do in their environment, including interactions with other organisms. It encompasses changes in internal states insofar as they pertain to what organisms do”.[8] Some definitions go further, focusing on direct observation of organisms in their environment, both past and present, such as this one by G.A. Bartholomew: “A student of natural history, or a naturalist, studies the world by observing plants and animals directly. Because organisms are functionally inseparable from the environment in which they live and because their structure and function cannot be adequately interpreted without knowing some of their evolutionary history, the study of natural history embraces the study of fossils as well as physiographic and other aspects of the physical environment”.[9] A common thread in many definitions of natural history is the inclusion of a descriptive component, as seen in a recent definition by H.W. Greene: “Descriptive ecology and ethology”.[10]

So the natural histories of the members can refer to their interactions with the environment and to their evolutionary history.

You keep juxtaposing “natural environment” to “built environment” – and maintaing that humans don’t have natural ones. Here is wiki on “natural environment”:

The natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species.[1] The concept of the natural environment can be distinguished by components:

Complete ecological units that function as natural systems without massive human intervention, including all vegetation, microorganisms, soil, rocks, atmosphere and natural phenomena that occur within their boundaries.

Universal natural resources and physical phenomena that lack clear-cut boundaries, such as air, water, and climate, as well as energy, radiation, electric charge, and magnetism, not originating from human activity.

The definition seems to be contradictory. If the “natural environment” encompasses the interactions of all living species, it should encompass those of humans.

But we need not get bogged down in terminological analysis. For one, none of the definitions above uses the term “natural environment.” So for these definitions your silly argument doesn’t work. Second, as noted above, per the definitions you cite, natural history also involves the evolutionary history of the organisms. We could grant, for the sake of argument, that humans don’t have ‘natural environments,’ by some definitions, and therefore interactions with them, but still maintain that they have evolutionary histories. I don’t see any logical ANDs in the definitions. Nothing indicates that “natural history” necessitates both having interactions AND having evolutionary histories. Third, the term ‘natural history’ is used in context to humans. For example,

Part II. Human Natural History in PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN ECOLOGY

Huh, how about that? You can also see this term used in discussion of specific human populations. For example,

“Arctic Dreams," a record of four years of travel and reflections above the Arctic Circle, is a number of things. It is a lyrical geography and natural history, an account of Eskimo life, and a history of northern explorations.”

Huh, how about that?

No doubt you would object. You would repeat that the “natural” in “natural history” implies “non-human,” even if the specific definitions given don’t state this. Let’s just refer to one of the definitions which you yourself point to: “Descriptive ecology and ethology.” You would agree that there is such a thing as human ethology, right? And human ecology? In no way does this definition suggest “non-human.”

And, we saw above that “human natural history” is referred to in books on human ecology. How about that?

…But how is this possible??? Didn’t those authors read your argument? I guess not.

I keep looking over your citations and seeing ways in which you’re contradicted. Let’s see:

A slightly different, but equally expansive framework for natural history is also implied in the scope of work encompassed by many leading natural history museums, which often include elements of Anthropology, Geology, Paleontology and Astronomy along with Botany and Zoology,[14][15] or include both cultural and natural components of the world.[16][17]

So why does the Smithsonian national museum of natural history have a section on human evolution (phylogenetic history)? Did they make a mistake?

Should I write them and let them know?

…

Given the above, am I the only one that disagrees with Blake on this issue?

[Blake]

SO that would be a big “No” on your ability to explain how natural history can be applied to humans?

And an equally big “No” on your ability to provide an example of someone referring to human natural history in a manner that is compatible with your usage of “phylogenetic history”.

That pretty much settles the issue then.

[Chuck11]

@Chuck11

Given the above, am I the only one that disagrees with Blake on this issue?

Here’s Blake:

“That quite obviously isn’t true of humans. Human natural history is a tautology.”

Here’s what google scholar gives for this tautology. 290 references.

Let me take an excerpt from one:

Unless otherwise qualified, the term “anthropology” refers to the study of human natural history — namely, physical anthropology. (Spencer, 1997. History of physical anthropology.)

Commonly used? No. Tautology? No.

[Blake]

SO let’s get this clear Chuck. When you use the term “natural history” to refer to humans, you are using it as a synonym for “anthropology”?

Because if that is what you mean, why the fuck didn’t you simply say “anthropology” rather than using these obfuscating terms? Could it be because you know damn well that no race has anything like consistent anthropological similarities? :dubious:

And if that isn’t what you mean, then quoting someone that does use the term as a synonym of anthropology is not in any way “an example of someone referring to human natural history in a manner that is compatible with your usage”.

At this stage I am not even going to comment on the obvious fact that “anthropology” isn’t even tangentially related to “phylogenetic history”, which is what you claimed that “natural history” refers to.

Let’s just clear up whether you now want to use “natural history” to mean “anthropology” as you reference does, or if you are simply introducing yet more obfuscation without actually providing an example of someone referring to human natural history in a manner that is compatible with your usage.

[Chuck11]

@Blake

SO that would be a big “No” on your ability to explain how natural history can be applied to humans?

That pretty much settles the issue then.

I guess that I have to outline my argument:

(1) There are many definitions of “natural history” (based on your cite)
(2) Some might exclude “human,” some clearly do not (based on your cite)
(3) By the ones that do not, it’s not inconsistent to refer to “human natural history” (this logically follows)

This is why some people discuss “human natural history” as cited.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Let’s see:

“Biological Anthropology: The Natural History of Humankind, Second Edition, 2005”

“The only book that integrates the foundations and the most current innovations in the field from the ground up. Over the past twenty years, this field has rapidly evolved from the study of physical anthropology into biological anthropology, incorporating the evolutionary biology of humankind based on information from the fossil record and the human skeleton, genetics of individuals and of populations, our primate relatives, human adaptation, and human behavior . Stanford combines the most up-to-date, comprehensive coverage of the foundations of the field with the modern innovations and discoveries.”

Holy smokes, you mean that Humans can have a natural history? But, teacher, Blake said…