And they very well might be wrong about all of it. There is pretty good evidence that there are a lot of good African runners because a lot of Africans start running at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing skill in running; there are a lot of good African-American basketball players because a lot of African-Americans start running at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing skill in basketball; there are a lot of good Canadian ice hockey players who were born in January, February, or March, because a lot of Canadians start playing ice hockey at a young age and there is a good social infrastructure to promote increasing the skills of those born in January, February, or March.
And these are reasons why the ordinary person on the street can’t be trusted to instinctively come to conclusions about biology and genetics. They don’t have enough information and they don’t have enough understanding for their conclusions to have any value at anything other than a superficial level.
That’s not the point. The point is not that biologists have a specific and precise meaning of the word “race” that only they use and that isn’t relevant to the Joe-on-the-street. The point is that Joe-on-the-street will draw conclusions about biology that aren’t supported by actual knowledge of biology and will apply those conclusions to the world around him in a way that has no real validity.
When you walk up to Joe and start asking those question about biology, he might use the terms of biology, but really his answer will come entirely from his social perceptions, not from biology at all.
You are correct here. I used the phrase ‘personally think’ when I meant ‘in my opinion’. So that is not a scientific assessment. However I am not aware of anyone claiming that the period of time of isolation of any known group of humans was long enough to lead to meaningful distinction in genetic structure. Please let me know if I am incorrect.
Again, I did not find that evidence. Where is the meaningful part? How can further conclusions be drawn based on the average genetic structure differences between continental inhabitants? How is the means of classification more meaningful than any other arbitrary classification?
And, once again, you point to a researcher talking specifically about the socially identified “races” subject to immigration founder effect in the U.S., not to some sort of world-wide analysis. Since the populations in the U.S. have been subjected to funnels in the emigration from the original locations, (blacks only from the West coast of that continent, Chinese from the Southeast of that land, etc.), “racial” analyses wind up actually identifying smaller, more closely related populations than the word “race” would indicate in its broader, more casual usage.
Don’t you get dizzy from running in circles? That has all the meaning of a claim that humans from the planet Earth show common levels of susceptibility to disease and response to drug treatments. You obviously have no means of defining a race in biological terms or identifying races much less ascribing meaning to a definition. Your best argument has been that some published papers make the same mistakes you do. This is GD, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t give it any significant credit, and I think you are mischaracterizing the papers you cite, which primarily use the term ‘race’ to contrast the practice of ignoring genetic clusters in medical diagnosis.
No it doesn’t because groups have materially different responses. Applying your approach you’d strip away most classification systems.
If you want a basic definition of racial groups you can use the definition Risch uses, that is basis of the primary continent of origin. Some definitions such as Michael Hardimon’s ordinary concept:
(1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features
(2) its members must be linked by a common ancestry
(3) its members must originate from a distinctive geographic location.
You expose the holes in your claim. Visible physical features and distinctive geographic location are not biological factors. All humans are linked by a common ancestry.
They are biological factors - physical features are heritable features (see the biology online definition), and these differences arise as a consequence of relative geographical isolation (restricting gene flow), inheritance and natural selection.
Can you explain how the biology online definition doesn’t apply to humans?
From your post: “(1) it must be distinguished from other groups by visible physical features”
That is not a definition of heritable features that can distinquish genetic similarity. It is basically a definition of how not to identify genetic structure. It is the very point that your other cites refer to in the use of self-identification of race, that a persons knowledge of their ancestors is more reliable than visible physical features in determining genetic ancestry. And neither visible physical features or self identification is conclusive, inclusive, or exclusive of genetic structure. You haven’t provided the evidence of physical isolation either. Humans are not restricted by geography in the same manner as other species. And you haven’t provided evidence of a restriction in gene flow that matches your classification system.
Your own cite says it doesn’t have a biological application to anything.
[Quote=Biology Online]
At present, such classification is disputed to have no biological validity
[/quote]
Chen, I understand that you have concluded that there is meaning to the definition of broad geographical classification of humans. Other than as a tool to guess the genetic makeup of a person, do you have any other meaning that you ascribe to your classification system? I’ll point out again that the classification system(s) you have posed are not in anyway conclusive of a person’s genetic structure, they do not include all members of any classification, and they do not exclude members of other classifications.
Perhaps you could read Risch’s article I provided above before resorting to snark. You still haven’t explained why the basic biological definition of race doesn’t apply to groups of human beings.
I’m not sure what you disagree with.
I take it you’ve conceded the point about gene flow?
You’ve accepted that there are clusters and these seem to have arisen due to said restriction of gene flow from geographic obstacles.
Do you never tire of producing cites that invalidate your argument? The quotes you gave were for the vernacular. If you read just a little further you would have seen:
Emphasis added.
Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I acknowledged above that it is disputed - that is a truism. I’m asking you to comment on the actual definition and explain why it doesn’t apply to humans.
You need to look at the actual argument rather than just accepting a sentence disclaimer saying this is disputed. Think a bit more critically about what you’re reading.
Dude, it’s your cite in support of your argument. If it contradicts what you are claiming, then it’s not me who needs to read for better comprehension.
And it’s not the sentence about being disputed that is the clincher. It’s the sentence about “subspecies”. Race = subspecies. Humans don’t have subspecies. It’s as plain as that. Go back and look at the cite I gave for the subspecies of chimps as compared to the variation seen in human populations. We just don’t qualify, by any objective application of the term.
It’s more like watching the clown car act at the circus. The clowns come out the door, go around to the back, get in the car again, come out the front door again…