Thanks, as I pointed out above - anything in the natural world is perceived, labelled, categorized in some way, is a social construct. Nonetheless, these social constructions are correlated with physical characteristics.
If you take a large number of a random set of loci, the same clusters DO reemerge. People use different SNP-chips, they use microsatellites, they use indels. As long as the N of the markers is large enough you see clusters reflecting evolutionary history.
:dubious:
The number of grandparents doubles each generation. That’s not exponential.
And you don’t have to go very far back to start getting repeats, especially when you reach the era before trains existed, and people’s ability to move was limited (which is not that many generations in the past).
On a slightly related topic, it is estimated that you only have to go back 10,000 years +/- before you get to the point where everyone alive today has exactly the same set of great-great-…-great grandparents. At that point, every person alive at the time was either an ancestor of everyone alive today, or no one alive today. This is known as the Identical Ancestor Point.
Welcome back. If you’re going to stick around, how about responding to my request that you clarify the debate a bit by listing the races that you believe exist? That would give us an assertion to examine.
Can you report if this are indeed the physical characteristics that you would consider important? And important for what?
Well okay, in place of the word “race”, we’ll use “populations”. That suits me.
“What’s the point of grouping Australian Aborigines and Ethiopians together simply because of skin color when they are not especially closely related? Isn’t that the whole point of the term?”
Well, you don’t group Aborigines together with Ehtiopians. I’ve said basically that several times.
Anyway, all this is becoming pointless. I’ll sum things up… As I’ve said, and no one yet has refuted, people who evolved in various regions often will share certain traits with others who evolved from the same region. Not all, but many of these similar features are visible. (Geez, I hope no one denies that.) This phenomenon occurred, and to some degree, is still under way today. Evolution. For centuries the result of this evolution in humans was called “race”. Just because it isn’t called “race” anymore doesn’t mean the phenomenon of evolution never happend, and the results do not still exist. Consequently, there are areas around the globe where people have had generally darker skin (one characteristic) whereas other regions around the globe the people have generally had lighter skin tones. All due to evolution. And that has been the marrow of my point.
People can say, “Why bother classifying people in such a way?” Well, some say there are valid reason. Perhaps there are. That has never been my point. My point has never been anything other than to state that many thousands of years of evolution has had an effect on mankind globally, and some of those effects are visible. If people get all in a tizzy because some people call these differences “race”, that’s fine. I’ve never insisted that “race” be the term applied. I’ve never insisted that any term be applied. We’ll use “populations” if you want. Now let’s wait and see who gets upset about that.
Does it include Neanderthals?
To a greater degree than any race can be defined, but your description will still be an imperfect abstraction.
No one is going to get upset about the use of the term “population”.
But the thing that is missing from your summary, and which is important to understand, is that these different populations were never isolated for an evolutionarily significant amount of time.
As I posted above in response to your earlier post, if you look at the area we call Europe, the Middle East and Africa, you can’t draw lines anywhere and say that people look different on one side of the line as opposed to the other. We don’t have “white people” and “black people”. We have a spectrum with people having pale skin on one end and dark skin on the other, and every shade in between.
The same thing goes for Eurasia. As I posted on the first page of this thread, it’s clear that people in Beijing look different from people in Berlin, but if you walk from Beijing to Berlin, there isn’t any one place where people stop looking Asian and start looking European.
It’s a continuum, and any lines you draw are going to necessarily put people who look just like each other on opposite sides of the lines.
Except that there kind of is, between far Western China and NE India. Or start looking Caucasian rather, the concept of “Europe” has more to do with religion than geography or race.
I have no doubt that there has been human travel that has caused various characteristics to be intertwined. Also, the effects of evolution probably have a “sliding” effect with geographic distance. That being said, it is tough to refute that a population that has had a long period of ancestrial evolution in northern Europe does in fact have different visible evolutionary characteristics when compared to a population that has had a long period of ancestrial evolution in sub-Sahara Africa.
At this point I’d like to have someone prove that untrue.
No, it is not dubious. Your quote “that means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian” is simply incorrect. This point is quite explicitly made here:
The reason why you get clusters that correspond to major geographic subdivisions is because these geographic barriers separation restricted gene flow.
Note, Dobzhansky’s comment in relation to “essentialist” arguments that you need pure discrete categories.
p147
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf
What is an evolutionarily significant amount of time? As I’ve pointed out above, it is significant enough to create significant disparities in propensity to different medical conditions and in responses to different drug treatments.
It also is enough time to mean that there are higher rates of c section deliveriesfor east asian mothers with white fathers.
The problem is that race, by definition, groups people based upon appearance. So race, if based upon biology, will inevitably group Aborigines together with Ethiopians.
That is the problem with using the term “race”. Race has a meaning and as every single definition posted in this thread shows, that definition requires physical similarities. So by using the term “race” you automatically group Aborigines together with Ethiopians.
The problem is that it wasn’t.
For example, Australians occupied an area larger than that between Nigeria and France and Australian populations were isolated from each other and from the rest of the world far longer than those populations. So if the system really was based upon shared traits due to regional evolution then Australians, who occupied a large geographic region and were more isolated and have thus undergone more regional evolution, should have been grouped into more races than the people between Nigeria and France. Ditto for the peoples of the Americas.
Conversely people in India evolved in the same region, and yet they show great physical and genetic variation, to the point where one single tribe in Pakistan is more divergent from the rest of humanity than Chinese are from Scots. All these groups are inextricably intermingled, so that various populations form a checkerboard patterns with other populations.
In fact the scheme fact that was called race for centuries was based upon *some * characters physical characteristics, but those characteristics were sometimes due to correspondence to the regions in which the people’s *ancestors *evolved (as in the case of Australia) sometimes due to the regions in which the population itself evolved (as in some Indian and African groups) and often due simply to founder effects (as in the case of the Americas).
Moreover the scheme ignored a great many physical characteristics and often on an ad hoc basis. So while eye shape was considered of paramount importance in Eurasia it was ignored in Africa because that would have resulted in Southern Africans being classified as Asian.
Adding to that, races were not only based upon physical traits. Those traits were then overlayed with current geography, language, culture and ethnicity to produce a pleasing result for the examiner. This is why dark many dark skinned people in India are considered Caucasoid despite the dark skin having been inherited from Australoid ancestors while people with more extensive Australoid ancestry have lighter skin.
If race had simply been based upon characteristics that had evolved in response to environment then it would be much less an issue. But it was not. Race was based upon any system that produced what superficially appeared to be geographic and phenotypic coherence.
But it isn’t all due to evolution. It is as much due to ancestral migrations as to evolution. That is why Australians at the same latitude as New York and Bordeaux have much darker skin than those populations, while Americans at the same latitude as Kenya have much lighter skin than the Australians.
And this is really the crux of the matter. The racial groupings are not consistent. While they always group people on the basis of physical appearance, that physical appearance is only sometimes the result of any sort of evolutionary coherence.
Our points have been:
So while what you say is certainly true, it has relatively little bearing upon race.
This is what you said:
My definition of race is clade (which, given the particular history of humans, is the same as saying regional ancestry, and given your stipulations corresponds to the major population clusters). As I noted, Michael Levin and Robin Andreasen have recently defended this concept. As I noted, the number of clades depends on the level of analysis. Since one of your criteria is " that the races must correspond, at least in part, to observable physical similarity," this level of analysis must be such that there are recognizable patterns of differences between the races qua clades.*
Since you cite Cavalli-Sforza, we can use his cladistic diagram to identify out races (Note that more recent authors might have refined to cladistic tree.) Here we are..
When we look at clades that show obvious patterns of differences (and therefore qualify as races by your stipulation) we are looking at Fst levels of .006 to .03 in this diagram. On the most general level we could identify two major clades: Africans and Out of Africans (which correspond to two major regions SS.Africa and Eurasian+). I argue that this racial subdivision would represent a logically consistent, biologically grouped classificatory scheme – but that’s not enough for you. You seem to have a further criteria: the races must correspond, at least in part, to the ordinary groupings commonly made by people . I would point out again that there are two separate issues:
Answering 2) in the negative implies nothing about 1). To illustrate the issue, while we distinguish between Archaea and Bacteria, most people don’t. Most people have an “ordinary” (or “folk”) understanding of biological groupings on this level. That their “ordinary” understanding does not cohere with the taxonomic one, does not imply that the taxonomic one is incorrect.
Nonetheless, to demonstrate the robustness of the cladistic scheme, we can see if the ordinary understanding matches any level of cladistic analysis. Using Cavalli-Sforza’s diagram and looking at an fst of .01-.018 we find out commonly referred to branches: West Africans, East African, Caucasians, North East Asians, Amerindians, Mainsland and insular South east asians, pacific islanders, Oceanians. These groupings match regional differences and patters of phenotypic differences.
Now, obviously you’re going to point out that not all of the cladistic groupings match the ordinary ones used in country X, Y, an Z. As I noted above, this suggests the people in those countries need more information, not less (e.g “there are no races”). Likely, you will also point out that I am arbitrarily selected a level of cladistic analysis. I would note again that you are putting the stipulations on this definition. The cladistic (ancestral-descendancy) relation establishes the connection/disconnection between groups. The criteria of 1) roughly corresponding to observable physical similarity and 2) roughly corresponding to the ordinary concept established the level of analysis. The nice things about this definition is that it overlaps with the ancestral population cluster one. See for example: Zhang, 2008. Tree-guided Bayesian inference of population structures, which overlaps with the ordinary concept of race and which allows independent confirmation (via cluster analysis) of our groups (-- to clarify, our groups are not delineated by cluster analysis but by cladistic analysis.).
*Interestingly, Cavalli-Sforza rejects the association of “race” with “population cluster” on the basis that the common racial classifications requires an adoption of an arbitrary level of analysis:
“By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify “clusters” of populations and order them in a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modern humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one. The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race distinction.”
Since you stipulate that race must “correspond, at least in part, to observable physical similarity,” this objection can be circumvented The non-arbitrary level or analysis would be the one in which recognizable patters of phenotypic differences appear between populations.
**According to the Journal of philosophy, the ordinary concept of racial populations includes: ancestral, regional, and phenotypic differences.
So what. The objexction to the use of the word “race” is that it lumps people from Senegal, Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, and South Africa into one super-population that is not sufficiently well defined to mean anything. Then someone will wander into a thread and claim that blacks/sub-Saharan Africans/“those people” are X, when X is only a valid statement, (or, often, an invalid statement), regarding Senegalese, ort Kenyans or South Africans.
That is the objection to the use of the word “race.” It connotes, (while attempting to denote), a uniformity of traits that are simply not there. The most persistent claim on this board, (aside from claims about relative intelligence), is that “blacks” are dominant sprinters. However, no dominant sprinter has an origin anywhere away from the Northern extent of the West Coast of Africa. Including the populations of the East and South of Africa is silly, since those populations do not supply sprinters of the same talent.
No one is denying that there are identifiable human populations, only that the big three, (or four, five, or six), “races” are not sufficiently coherent to justify using that word because when anyone begins to discuss “race,” the majority of the audience is going to think about the very large non-coherent groups of populations rather than thinking about the smaller, actually defined populations.
Edit.
This is what you said:
My definition of race is clade (which, given the particular history of humans, is the same as saying regional ancestry, and given your stipulations corresponds to the major population clusters). As I noted, Michael Levin and Robin Andreasen have recently defended this concept. As I noted, the number of clades depends on the level of analysis. Since one of your criteria is " that the races must correspond, at least in part, to observable physical similarity," this level of analysis must be such that there are recognizable patterns of differences between the races qua clades.*
Since you cite Cavalli-Sforza, we can use his cladistic diagram to identify our races (Note that more recent authors might have more refined cladistic trees.) Here we are..
When we look at the clades that show obvious patterns of differences (and therefore qualify as races by your stipulation) we are looking at Fst levels of .006 to .03 in this diagram. On the most general level we could identify two major clades: Africans and Out of Africans (which correspond to two major regions SS.Africa and Eurasia+). I argue that this racial subdivision would represent a logically consistent, biologically grouped classificatory scheme – but that’s not enough for you. You seem to have a further criteria: the races must correspond, at least in part, to the ordinary groupings commonly made by people . I would point out again that there are two separate issues:
Answering 2) in the negative implies nothing about 1). To illustrate the issue, while we distinguish between Archaea and Bacteria, most people don’t. Most people have an “ordinary” (or “folk”) understanding of biological groupings on this level. That their “ordinary” understanding does not cohere with the taxonomic one does not imply that this taxonomic one is incorrect.
Nonetheless, to demonstrate the robustness of the cladistic scheme, we can see if the ordinary understanding matches any level of cladistic analysis. Using Cavalli-Sforza’s diagram and looking at an fst of .01-.018 we find our commonly referred to branches: West Africans, East African, Caucasians, North East Asians, Amerindians, Mainland and Insular South east Asians, pacific islanders, Oceanians. These groupings match regional differences and patters of phenotypic differences.
Now, obviously you’re going to point out that not all of the cladistic groupings match the ordinary ones used in country X, Y, an Z. As I noted above, this suggests the people in those countries need more information, not less (e.g “there are no races”). Likely, you will also point out that I am arbitrarily selected a level of cladistic analysis. I would note again that you are putting the stipulations on this definition. The cladistic (ancestral-descendancy) relation establishes the connection/disconnection between groups. The criteria of 1) roughly corresponding to observable physical similarity and 2) roughly corresponding to the ordinary concept established the level of analysis. The nice things about this definition is that it overlaps with the ancestral population cluster one. See for example: Zhang, 2008. Tree-guided Bayesian inference of population structures, which overlaps with the ordinary concept of race and which provides independent confirmation (via cluster analysis) of our groupings (-- to clarify, our groups are grouped by cluster analysis but by cladistic analysis).
*Interestingly, Cavalli-Sforza rejects the association of “race” with “population cluster” on the basis that the common racial classifications requires an adoption of an arbitrary level of analysis:
“By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify “clusters” of populations and order them in a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modern humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one. The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race distinction.”
Since you stipulate that race must “correspond, at least in part, to observable physical similarity,” this objection can be circumvented The non-arbitrary level or analysis would be the one in which recognizable patters of phenotypic differences appear between populations.
**According to the Journal of philosophy, the ordinary concept of racial populations includes: ancestral, regional, and phenotypic differences.
Huh? Ethiopians and Aborigines don’t even look alike.
And yet, that abstract explicitly notes:
Hardly a big show of support for proclaiming “race” to be an objective reality.
Funny, the dubious was to underline the now obvious “method” that you have to ignore the conclusions of the reports when some line seems to fit your ideas or agenda. It does not work that way.
That this says is that genetically speaking, the differences have a place in medicine, but not the usual concepts of race.
&usg=__0caoFm8SwiRS_aB6cZ_tXxYWrtE=&h=413&w=374&sz=40&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UWUBgR6CHh1ReM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=111&ei=N0ieTaWYEsa9tgeAg6WMAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCavalli-Sforza%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D709%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1025&vpy=358&dur=739&hovh=236&hovw=214&tx=165&ty=135&oei=_UeeTbmiN8agtgf8z_j7Ag&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0){kind=link}