Meaningfull Biological Definition of Race

[Chen019]

@Acsenray

Exactly.

If the word “race” has no meaning without a “black race,” then, yes, from a biological point of view, you’ve hit the mark, the word “race” has no meaning.

There is no scientific/biological/genetic basis on which to define the black race in any way that allows for the delineation of non-black races in any rational manner. The “black race” as commonly understood encompasses a huge amount of the genetic variation that exists in humans overall. If “black” is a biological race, then it’s pretty much the only race, because all the non-black races are more closely genetically related to some segment of the black race than segments of the black race are to each other.
That’s why the concept of a “black race” is entirely social and why the concept of “race” is entirely social, not biological.

This isn’t true. Look up the genetic distance between groups.

[Colibri]

@Chen019

This isn’t true. Look up the genetic distance between groups.

Could you please explain to us what genes specifically are being indicated in that diagram?

[Rand_Rover]

@tomndebb

Whatever your views might be–aside from clearly wrong–you are now mischaracterizing what I have said. That would indicate that you are here simply to yank chains and not to participate in the discussion.

Please. You told me the impression you get from my posts, and I told you the impression I get from yours. There was no characterization period, let alone a mischaracterization.

I’m surprised to see you so grossly misidentify a case of mischaracterization since you yourself are such a fine practitioner of the mischaracterization arts (as you’ve shown many times in countless threads, most recently the torture threads).

[John_Mace]

@Chen019

There are more up to date graphs & data than this, but this figure from Cavalli-Sforza gives a rough idea of genetic distance across various groups.

This doesn’t tell us where the borders are, and note that even in this diagram, but note that two of your groups in that diagram have subgroups that are closer to the other group.

I don’t have my copy of Genes, Peoples and Languages handy (which is where that graph is from), but C-S specifically says in that book that “race” is not a concept supported by biology. Since you seem to have it, can you quote the part of the book that supports your concept of “race”?

[John_Mace]

Here, let me quote from the wikipedia entry on LLC-S:

Cavalli-Sforza has summed up his work for laymen in five topics covered in Genes, Peoples, and Languages.[1] According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza “challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that ‘race’ has any useful biological meaning at all”.

[tomndebb]

@Rand_Rover

Please. You told me the impression you get from my posts, and I told you the impression I get from yours. There was no characterization period, let alone a mischaracterization.

I commented on the content of your posts. You then made an attempt to insult me, personally. That difference indicates that you are not interested in the discussion, as such.

Claiming that I am “going to deny that there’s any way to put humans into different groups on a biological basis for any purpose whatsoever” is a misrepresentation that cannot be supported by anything I have ever posted. To make that claim, you need to either ignore my posts or invent positions for me to hold.

[Rand_Rover]

@John_Mace

This doesn’t tell us where the borders are

Let me repeat this for the thousandth time–anyone looking at this can draw the borders wherever they want to, and they can call those within the borders they draw a “race.” And then they could do some kind of study and see if the people within the group they created share other characteristics in a way that’s predicted in a meaningful manner by which group they belong to. (And then people like many of those posting in this thread can then say “oh, that study pre-supposes that there is such a thing as ‘race,’ so it’s bunk and doesn’t even need to be considered–it can be dismissed out of hand because everyone knows there’s no such thing as race.”)

[An_Gadai]

@John_Mace

So, you are putting together people in Africa who are more distantly related than Europeans and Asians are. That makes sense. And you’re putting together Hawai’ians and Australians. That makes a lot of sense, too.

But just out of curiosity, where is the dividing line between Caucasians and Asians? What’s the border? I want to see that people near the border on either side are really more distantly related to each other then the guy on the “Caucasian” side is to someone in Ireland.

Irish people aren’t Caucasian, or weren’t.

[septimus]

@MrDibble

Actually, they’re not.

@Colibri

Could you please explain to us what genes specifically are being indicated in that diagram?

Obviously not the gene MrDibble refers to.

[John_Mace]

@Rand_Rover

Let me repeat this for the thousandth time–anyone looking at this can draw the borders wherever they want to, and they can call those within the borders they draw a “race.” And then they could do some kind of study and see if the people within the group they created share other characteristics in a way that’s predicted in a meaningful manner by which group they belong to. (And then people like many of those posting in this thread can then say “oh, that study pre-supposes that there is such a thing as ‘race,’ so it’s bunk and doesn’t even need to be considered–it can be dismissed out of hand because everyone knows there’s no such thing as race.”)

Repeating something that is incorrect a thousand times doesn’t suddenly make it correct. There is a biological definition of race that those populations would not meet. You could claim that humans and chimps were the same species, but that wouldn’t make it true even if you said a thousand times.

[Rand_Rover]

@John_Mace

Repeating something that is incorrect a thousand times doesn’t suddenly make it correct. There is a biological definition of race that those populations would not meet. You could claim that humans and chimps were the same species, but that wouldn’t make it true even if you said a thousand times.

Ah, OK. I didn’t know you were of the contingent who’s jazzed on something called a “biological definition of race.” I of course wasn’t discussing that. I was just discussing that it’s possible to group people according to genetic clusters and perform studies on the groups. I don’t know how that stacks up with whatever you believe is the “biological definition of race.”

[Telemark]

@Rand_Rover

Ah, OK. I didn’t know you were of the contingent who’s jazzed on something called a “biological definition of race.” I of course wasn’t discussing that.

Checks subject line of the thread.

Isn’t that what we’re discussing here?

[tomndebb]

@Telemark

Checks subject line of the thread.

Isn’t that what we’re discussing here?

The rest of us are. Rand has his own hijack agenda.

[John_Mace]

@Rand_Rover

Ah, OK. I didn’t know you were of the contingent who’s jazzed on something called a “biological definition of race.” I of course wasn’t discussing that. I was just discussing that it’s possible to group people according to genetic clusters and perform studies on the groups. I don’t know how that stacks up with whatever you believe is the “biological definition of race.”

Did you read the thread title?

Anyone (and I’m not aiming this at you) who thinks there are biologically meaningful races of humans is living in the 1950s. Back then, we really didn’t know much about human evolution.

We had no idea that we all trace our very recent (in evolutionary terms) ancestry to Africa. We thought that Europeans were descended from Neanderthals. We thought, perhaps, that Asians were descended from Erectus populations like Peking Man. We didn’t know anything about the DNA of living populations. We literally had no idea what the time frame was for the evolution of modern humans. We thought humans and chips diverged 15 - 20M years ago.

Since then, starting in the 1970s, everything changed. We had better fossils, but more importantly we had tons of DNA evidence that turned our whole idea of modern humans upside down. We learned that we split from the chimp line only 5-6M years ago, and that chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. We learned that all humans outside Africa are descended from a small population that left that continent only about 60K years ago. We learned that Neanderthals went extinct (although we recently learned that Europeans have small traces of Neanderthal genes).

All that was revolutionary stuff, and made biologists completely rethink how extant human populations are related.

[MrDibble]

@Chen019

This isn’t true. Look up the genetic distance between groups.

What a retarded diagram. Firstly, “West African” is “Bantu”. Secondly, Khoisan/Everyone Else should be the first split (by the Haplogroup data), any cladogram that has Khoisan branching that low down is arse-backwards somehow. Of course, we couldn’t know because there’s no provenance or data table to go with this “genetic distance” variable.

[MrDibble]

Let me rephrase before any pedants get in - “Bantu” are found in West Africa, so meaningfully they can’t be excluded from the category “West African”

[CannyDan]

@Colibri

Could you please explain to us what genes specifically are being indicated in that diagram?

I backtracked the jpg to the root web site, and poked around a little. This note appearswith the diagram:

The genetic relationships within the human race today (or at least of many major groups within it) has been published by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1994, The History and geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press. The chart below is adapted from this work.

I have not examined the site in detail, but it really does not seem to support the argument that “biological race” is applicable to modern humans. Statements like the following are common:

A closely linked subject that has fascinated us for a long time and that is also rarely discussed outside specialist groups is the Great Human Migration which is in turn closely connected to our common origin in Africa. These subjects are linked to our third main subject: how did the modern “races” (which are strictly speaking not “races” in the biological sense at all but local variations within our single exceptionally homogeneous human race) got to be where they are today. Another question that interests us (and for which no one has yet found an answer): why are some human groups being pushed towards extinction while others are booming?

There is a lack of variation in the human genome. There are more than 6 billion of us of us swarming all over the planet, yet compared to most other species on this planet we are practically identical, genetically speaking. This is a peculiarity of Homo sapiens that is not widely known outside specialist circles but it should be, not least to counter the racist rubbish that is peddled from some quarters.

This does not square up with what I believe **Chen019 **has been asserting. Or am I confused?

Oh, and MrDibble, the site offers a more detailed breakdownof African subgroups, if you wish to see it. I would be interested in knowing your perspective.

[Chen019]

@John_Mace

This doesn’t tell us where the borders are, and note that even in this diagram, but note that two of your groups in that diagram have subgroups that are closer to the other group.

I don’t have my copy of Genes, Peoples and Languages handy (which is where that graph is from), but C-S specifically says in that book that “race” is not a concept supported by biology. Since you seem to have it, can you quote the part of the book that supports your concept of “race”?

He makes the point that there are “lumpers” and “splitter’s”. That is, there are the major groups that I identified above and that are discussed in the Risch paper on categorization of humans in biomedical research. Those major groupings are actually on the cover of the book The History and Geography of Human Genes. He describes the map as follows:

“The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”

[Chen019]

@Colibri

Could you please explain to us what genes specifically are being indicated in that diagram?

Cavalli-Sforza sets out and discusses the phylogenetic tree & allele frequencies used on pages 77 to 80 here.

[TriPolar]

@Chen019

He makes the point that there are “lumpers” and “splitter’s”. That is, there are the major groups that I identified above and that are discussed in the Risch paper on categorization of humans in biomedical research. Those major groupings are actually on the cover of the book The History and Geography of Human Genes. He describes the map as follows:

Could you explain what is meaningful about the continental classification of races? It definitely shows that genetic distribution is inherited and not random, but that’s been supported by more precise information unrelated to continents for a long time. The medical use of continental race is simply based on the obvious increase in likelihood of a person sharing genes with a smaller genetic cluster located on a continent. What is meaningful about your theory? I think confirmation of genetic distribution falls into the category of trivial. Anything else?