You seem to be using the term “racial groups” to mean existing racial groups, or racial groups that have already been commonly identified (e.g., “whites, blacks, asians”). But I’m sure you don’t mean simply ANY possible racial group, right?
All I’ve been saying in this thread is it is possible to construct a group of people based on inheritable characteristics, and one term that could be used for that group is “racial group.” And doing so could lead to learning more about people. And doing so does not necessarily mean that one thinks any such group is inherently and irredeemably superior or inferior to any other such group.
As people have said above, in the natural sciences you are going to have subjective classifications. But, go back to the biological definition Race - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary. Can you identify someones lineage or regional ancestry from physical features (forensic anthropological determinations are based on correlations of skeletal features) & genetic markers? Yes, with pretty high confidence.
Breeding groups clump together for various reasons. On some levels, it’s not an even distribution, which is why you get black people and Asian people etc. Race exists because human populations and population biology follows the same rules as every mammal species on the planet. And that nature doesn’t make exclusive categories – races are not absolutes. Even species are not always absolutes, or what we think are species.
The boundaries across populations can be fuzzy, as you can see here.
Here’s the deal. When you subdivide a species, what you’re really talking about is a subspecies. So, from a biological standpoint race = subspecies. (If you want it to means something else, then you really just mean “ethnic group”, which can be almost anything.)
At least for animals, there is a recognized authority for defining what a species is, and whether any given population rates its own species designation. That requires there to be little or no breeding with other populations in the wild. Note that this is not affected by artificial breeding of species, like lions and tigers, in captivity. As long as they don’t interbreed in the wild, then they’re considered to be distinct species.
The most broadly used technique for defining subspecies is that the populations must meet 2 criteria: 1) They must be morphologically distinct, and the distinction must be discontinuous (ie, not clinal) in nature; and 2) there must be little or no interbreeding in the wild (usually due to some physical barrier preventing interbreeding, and absent that barrier, interbreeding would proceed at a natural rate). However, note that there is no recognized body to determine whether a subspecies designation is appropriate. Biologists often come up with different numbers of subspecies for any given species, often depending on whether they are lumpers or splitters.
When you apply that definition to humans, we just don’t pass muster.
We have lots and lots and lots of ethnic groups, but no population that can reasonably be called a subspecies.
Quoting from wikipedia: “In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated.”
It is easily possible to argue that, in a biological context, there are human population groupings that fulfill that criteria. I am expressly not arguing that means that it is useful in all contexts–quite the opposite. I am expressly not arguing that it is more accurate or more useful, merely that it is equivalent by strict definition of the word in some cases. I am expressly doing so to head off any further argument about whether or not it CAN be used (in limited contexts) so we can focus on the more interesting questions of “when, if at all, should it be used”.
Basically, I am hedging it in order to head off the argument Rand is making in post 241.
Speaking of which:
I do not disagree. Conversely: because
a significant proportion of the lay population in the US will misinterpret all use of the term “race” and derivatives to mean “commonly identified, and discrete, groups”
and
the term “population” when said population is properly defined is exactly equivalent to the biological definition of “race” as quoted above, without the baggage,
therefore biologists and laypeople, in a layperson’s discussion of the topic, are justified in saying “we don’t talk about ‘races’ (blacks/whites/asians/one drop rule/baggage), we talk about ‘populations’ (rigorously and not always morphologically defined subgroups)”, reserving the biological term ‘race’ for non-human species.
Nope, what Chen019 is doing is claiming that the change was only due to Orwellian reasons, indeed just for political reasons, it was more complex than that and there are biological and anthropological reasons why the old race term was dropped.
That is a review of the book The Retreat of Scientific Racism, the history is that indeed there has been a retreat of scientific racism, but it has not completely disappeared.
As I proved in this post nobody can identify regional lineage based on skeletal features)
The experts in this field, experts who were originally referenced by Chen, state clearly and plainly that skeletal evidence contradicts the biological race concept and that skeletal evidence can only lead to a racial classification if census data allows the rejection of the most likely racial groupings based upon the physical evidence.
Be warned, Chen is being dishonest in the extreme in the way the he misrepresents these references.
Good, then you will be able to name those races, and then tell us what these small genetic difference are between them.
The amazing thing is that so many people like you and Max the Vool are so adamant that such races must exist and that it is so easy to argue in favour of them, yet when asked what these races are and what evidence you have that they exist, you are utterly unable to answer.
So please, tell me the names of these genetically divergent human populations that are phenotypically distinct,
I’m certainly losing any interest in discussing it with YOU, for goodness sake. Sometimes people don’t have time to take the half hour or so it would take to type up a very lengthy and thoughtful response to a very long post, but have time to drop in a few shorter things.
You make extremely long posts, I take the time to respond to them in equal length, and you “don;t have the time” to respond, but have the time to repeat the same nonsense that I debunked at length. I am still waiting for responses to posts that that I made 3 days ago. You apparently have the time to post over 2, 000 words, but not to respond to criticisms of your ideas.
As I said, you clearly have no interest in discussing the actual topic, with anyone. You simply want to push the same nonsense regardless of how much evidence anyone presents which shows that it is incorrect.
I have already explained my point of view: that a case CAN be made for them (especially if we limit to superficial morphology–“The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats” could superficially describe “skin melatonin concentrations in humans vary based on typical sunlight exposure”), not that I think that is the right thing to do (my previous example is deliberately chosen to be simplistic, because there are no effective complex examples, in my opinion). I am asserting this specifically to full-stop the argument of “but why can’t we do it” and go directly to “why we should NOT do it”, which is by any logic a significantly stronger-appearing case to the layman.
But “skin melanin” (not melatonin, btw) concentration does not “vary based on typical sunlight exposure”. South America covers latitudes similar to Africa, and yet the native inhabitants of SA are very light skinned compared to Africans. If I tell you someone comes from an area 20 deg south of the equator, you will not be able to predict that person’s skin color with any degree of accuracy.
That is why you are unable to make it. I asked you some simple questions to see if you are able to make such a case, and you are unable to do so.
First off skin melatonin levels do not in any way vary with race. There is far *specific *more diurnal variation in skin melatonin within a single individual within a single 24 hour cycle than their total average variation between races.
Secondly, while skin melatonin level do indeed vary with sunlight exposure, they vary based on direct immediate exposure, not in response to “typical exposure”. Any detectable effect of sunlight on melatonin in levels in the skin (or anywhere else) vanishes within 14 days at the outside.
Thirdly there is absolutely no evidence at all that the response of melatonin levels to sunlight are in any way the result of adaptation.
If this is the sort of scientific knowledge that you are basing you case on then I think it highlight very effectively the strength of the case.
As I proved in this post nobody can identify regional lineage based on skeletal features)
The experts in this field, experts who were originally referenced by Chen, state clearly and plainly that skeletal evidence contradicts the biological race concept and that skeletal evidence can only lead to a racial classification if census data allows the rejection of the most likely racial groupings based upon the physical evidence.
Be warned, Chen is being dishonest in the extreme in the way the he misrepresents these references.
When I joined this thread, there was a lot of loud debate going back and forth with the two sides approximated as:
There is no such thing as biological race, just groups of populations based on certain genetic criteria
and
Of course there’s such a thing as racial groups, you guys admit you can sort people based on genetics, so what’s the horrible deal about calling “populations” “races” and sorting them based on that if it’s useful?
So I came in, and I thought it was clear that I was saying “Even if 2) is true, which I can see you might be able to argue in good (i.e. non-racist) faith through the right lens, why would you want to use it when we have a perfectly good concept like ‘population’ that is not going to have perception issues.” Somehow this has led me to get accused of defending 2), when what I’m doing is pointing out how people not fully trained in biology could come up with arguments that appear to superficially validate 2).
If someone points out that so many top distance runners are Christian (something like 90% of them are baptised/christened Christians) and says “hey, I wonder if it has something to do with biology”, does that mean that Christian has a biological meaning?
I have asked this question several times, and never received an answer (I wonder why )
If the fact that a *race *performs well in a sport is evidence that race has a biological meaning, then why isn’t the fact that a *religion *performs well in a sport equally evidence that religion has a biological meaning?
And if so can we extend this spurious argument ad infinitum. Most of the top sprinters had crew cuts. So that must mean that “crew cut” has a biological meaning. Most of them liked rap music, so “likes rap music” must have a biological meaning. And so on and so forth.
Does anybody here *not *see how ridiculous this argument is?
This is a classic fallacy of composition.
High sprinting performance is biologically based.
High performing sprinters are grouped in the black race.
Therefore the black race is biologically based.
Crows are black
My dog is black
Therefore my dog is a crow,
)