Meaningfull Biological Definition of Race

[Chen019]

@heatmiserfl

All the great apes, except maybe Bonobos have subspecies* even though their populations are a minute fraction of ours.* Chimps have 4. Gorillas have 2-3. Orangutans have 3. Bonobos may have had subspecies but there are only 10,000 of them left. Their subspecies split 100’s of thousands of years ago. This is known.

I have never seen anyone say that we now have different Human subspecies except for the cite you linked to. I couldn’t figure out where they were getting the numbers in a couple of the cites. The cite itself has no evidence for being associated with a scientist.

The cite I gave was a legitimate cite. If you think that humans have subspecies and that there wasn’t a migration of a small population of humans out of Africa in relatively recent times, please provide one from a scientific source.

1. You have Out of Africa + neanderthal introgression and Denisovan introgression (for some groups).

2. When you sample individuals from around the world you get clusters which correspond to major continental populations (major clades or races). Those clusters emerge because of geographical separation leading to restricted gene flow between those groups. They have accumulated different sets of genetic variants over time depending on where there depending on where their ancestors lived. This is the point that Risch el al make in The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice:

From the perspective of genetics, structure in the human population is determined by patterns of mating and reproduction. Historically, the greatest force influencing genetic differentiation among humans has been geography. Great physical distances and geographic barriers (e.g., high mountains, large deserts, and large bodies of water) have imposed impediments to human communication and interaction and have led to geographically determined endogamous (i.e., within-group) mating patterns resulting in a genetic substructure that largely follows geographic lines. The past two decades of research in population genetics has also shown that the greatest genetic differentiation in the human population occurs between continentally separated groups.

[Chuck11]

@Chen019

Chen,

Where are we in this debate?

[Chuck11]

@CannyDan

Humans though are not nearly so complex …
Your citation of the Endangered Species Handbook demonstrates, not a biological usage, but a legal one. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with it, since these two things are not in, shall we say, one to one correspondence.

When it comes to race, the question is: can humans meaningfully be divided into races given how other species are. This requires a definition of race. Chen referred to O’Brien and Mayr’s. (See: O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies). This is commonly used in conservation biology. Example: Phillips et al., 2009.
Systematics of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus): subspecies recognition based on concordance of genetics and morphometrics.

[Chuck11]

@CannyDan

Humans though are not nearly so complex. Genetic diversity of humankind is quite low (see multiple cites upthread)

Could you cite the specific subspecies definition and criteria that is being used here?

[Chuck11]

@TriPolar

Picking up from this thread, at thispost.

Not your anecdotes, or logic, or rationalization. Just provide the definition like this:

The human races are ____, ____, … , and ____
You can determine the race of somebody by examining _________
From that determination of race you can determine ________

If your contention is true, it can’t be that hard to do.

This doesn’t seem too difficult.

[1] Human races are "populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world …[where] most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. (Wright, 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. p 439-440)

(Has the definition changed that much in 30 years?)

[2] You can determine the race of somebody by examining their morphology
(Konigsberg, 2009. Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: sex and race)

[3] From that determination of race you can determine your relative genetic relatedness with them.

[MrDibble]

@Chuck11

[1] Human races are "populations that have long inhabited **separated **parts of the world

…and already we fail. There is no such part of the world.

[Chuck11]

[QUOTE]

@MrDibble

…and already we fail. There is no such part of the world.

Fail! The world does not exist! Fail! There aren’t historic continental populations! Fail!
Not enough time.

Here’s Sewall’s full quote – he was well aware of the time frame of divergence.

There is also no question, however, that populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair in spite of so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other.

It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones. The occurrence of a few conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to widely different environmental conditions, does not necessarily imply much difference in general. Nei and Roychoudhury (1974) have shown that the differences among negroids, caucasoids, and mongoloids in the protein and blood group loci are slight compared with those between individuals within any one of them. There is disagreement on the number of major races that should be recognized. At a minimum, the Australoids are added to the three referred to above.

[TriPolar]

@Chuck11

This doesn’t seem too difficult.

[1] Human races are "populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world …[where] most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. (Wright, 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. p 439-440)

(Has the definition changed that much in 30 years?)

Can you provide the list of races?

@Chuck11

[2] You can determine the race of somebody by examining their morphology
(Konigsberg, 2009. Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: sex and race)

You can guess the race of somebody by examining their morphology. Notice the word ‘estimation’ in the title of your cite.

@Chuck11

[3] From that determination of race you can determine your relative genetic relatedness with them.

Again, the problem is using the word ‘determine’ as opposed to something like ‘estimate’. ** Chen019 **continues to argue about what ‘meaningful’ means. There is undoubtedly a correlation between superficial characteristics and genetic clusters. It is a weak correlation because of the lack of exclusivity, inclusivity, an conclusivity of this correlation. My opinion is that this represents a coincidence, taken in a snapshot of time, and is not meaningful. If you think it is meaningful, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

@Chuck11

When it comes to race, the question is: can humans meaningfully be divided into races given how other species are. This requires a definition of race. Chen referred to O’Brien and Mayr’s. (See: O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies). This is commonly used in conservation biology. Example: Phillips et al., 2009.
Systematics of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus): subspecies recognition based on concordance of genetics and morphometrics.

The issue of conservation is a political one. Defining species and sub-species as endangered is easier when you divide as much as possible and create smaller populations. In addition, as I pointed out much earlier in the thread, there is an incentive to allow fine distinctions of sub-species so that biologists can name them, something I called ‘Biologist Meaningful’.

[Chen019]

@TriPolar

** Chen019 **continues to argue about what ‘meaningful’ means. There is undoubtedly a correlation between superficial characteristics and genetic clusters. It is a weak correlation because of the lack of exclusivity, inclusivity, an conclusivity of this correlation. My opinion is that this represents a coincidence, taken in a snapshot of time, and is not meaningful. If you think it is meaningful, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

If you mean, are these fixed unchangeable entities then you’re creating a strawman. Of course they’re taken in a snapshot of time From Chuck’s reference above Phillips et al., 2009. Systematics of Steller sea lions:

We follow the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2007) who propose that “subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species.”

And that is what the continental races reflect:

Historically, the greatest force influencing genetic differentiation among humans has been geography. Great physical distances and geographic barriers (e.g., high mountains, large deserts, and large bodies of water) have imposed impediments to human communication and interaction and have led to geographically determined endogamous (i.e., within-group) mating patterns resulting in a genetic substructure that largely follows geographic lines. The past two decades of research in population genetics has also shown that the greatest genetic differentiation in the human population occurs between continentally separated groups.

[Chuck11]

@Chen019

And that is what the continental races reflect:

FAIL! There is no such part of the world!

[TriPolar]

@Chen019

If you mean, are these fixed unchangeable entities then you’re creating a strawman. Of course they’re taken in a snapshot of time From Chuck’s reference above Phillips et al., 2009. Systematics of Steller sea lions:

And that is what the continental races reflect:

Haven’t we been over this before? We have different opinions about what ‘meaningful’ means. And there is no consensus for what constitutes a sub-species. I find that term lacks meaning because of its application.

[Chuck11]

[quote=“TriPolar, post:328, topic:582472”]

Can you provide the list of races?

[QUOTE]

Based on this definition, you get what you see in figure 1.: West Eurasian, East Eurasian, Oceanian, American, and African. Of Course, you could break the populations down more (especially the African one)

You can guess the race of somebody by examining their morphology. Notice the word ‘estimation’ in the title of your cite.

Yes, you can estimate or determine with a high degree of accuracy. by this definition, the qualifying criteria for subspecies is being able to correctly assign ~75% or more members to a population. Refer to: Smith et al., 1997. Subspecies and Classification or Amadon, 1949. The Seventy-Five Per Cent Rule for Subspecies This is what it means to say “that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.”

Again, the problem is using the word ‘determine’ as opposed to something like ‘estimate’.. There is undoubtedly a correlation between superficial characteristics and genetic clusters. It is a weak correlation because of the lack of exclusivity, inclusivity, an conclusivity of this correlation. My opinion is that this represents a coincidence, taken in a snapshot of time, and is not meaningful. If you think it is meaningful, I doubt I could convince you otherwise.

I think I see what you’re saying. The point I am making is that you can use patterns of phenotypic differences to assign individuals to populations (genetic clusters) with a high degree of accuracy (>75%). This fulfills the criteria for subspecies given the definition mentioned.

I guess I don’t see subspecies as needing to have deep differences or deep meaning. I take this statement for granted: “It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones. The occurrence of a few conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to widely different environmental conditions, does not necessarily imply much difference in general.”

As far as I am aware, this is how the concept is (still) used with other non-human animals.

The issue of conservation is a political one.

I’m aware of the problem.

[septimus]

@Chen019

However, you seemed stumped when I pointed out the genetic diversity of other species which have races or varieties:

This table compares diversity within dingo, etc. with that of humans. But dingo is itself a subspecies. Has anyone linked to similar statistics for a more … er, diverse … set of species? (Sorry, I’ve only skimmed the thread, which seems to shed more heat than light.)

I did stumble on a recent paper (free registration may be required)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035.full.pdf
which has great detail about human genetic variation. 3-D principal component plots are shown, giving a clearer view of clustering. (I’d never heard of the Hadza, shown in the paper as a very isolated genetic cluster. Only 1000 people are left of this ancient Tanzanian group.)

[Chuck11]

@Chen019

If you mean, are these fixed unchangeable entities then you’re creating a strawman. Of course they’re taken in a snapshot of time From Chuck’s reference above Phillips et al., 2009. Systematics of Steller sea lions

Chen,

Did you read this paper: Woodley, 2009. Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
(You might have to click on the file link twice to get it to upload)

[Chen019]

@Chuck11

Chen,

Did you read this paper: Woodley, 2009. Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
(You might have to click on the file link twice to get it to upload)

Yes, I just read that the other day as I was interested by some of the comments here suggesting humans have low genetic diversity, or too low for races. Woodley sets out clearly that it is similar to other groups that have races or subspecies. Thanks for providing a link, hopefully Telemark & CannyDan will read it.

[heatmiserfl]

@Chuck11

Chen,

Did you read this paper: Woodley, 2009. Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
(You might have to click on the file link twice to get it to upload)

There’s two problems with that paper.

Problem #1

Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal published by Elsevier. It was originally intended as a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review, “so long as (the ideas) are coherent and clearly expressed” in order to “foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives.”[1] Medical Hypotheses was the only Elsevier journal that did not send submitted papers to other scientists for review.[2] Articles were chosen instead by the journal’s editor-in-chief based on whether he considered the submitted work interesting and important. The journal’s policy placed full responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of publications on the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor.[3]
The journal’s lack of peer review[4] and publication of ideas that are considered clear pseudoscience,[5] particularly AIDS denialism,[6] attracted considerable criticism, including calls to remove it from PubMed, the prestigious United States National Library of Medicine online journal database.[5] Following the AIDS papers controversy, Elsevier forced a change in the journal’s leadership. In June 2010, Elsevier announced that “Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit”, suggesting that peer review is now in place.[7]

Medical Hypotheses

Problem #2

Michael A. Woodley was born in Guildford, England in 1984. He received his bachelor of science degree in 2007 from Columbia University, where he majored in ecology, evolution and environmental biology. He is currently working towards a Ph.D. in plant sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, where he is studying the community ecology of the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana). In addition to ecology, he is also interested in evolutionary psychology, personality and individual differences psychology, physical anthropology, cryptozoology and philosophy of science.

Michael A Woodley - Publications List

:dubious:

[Chen019]

@ heatmiserfl,

You’re playing the man rather than the ball. I could simply point out that in terms of human genetics Neil Risch is described by one of described by one of the field’s founding fathers as “the statistical geneticist of our time”. And Risch et al point out:

The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.

Maybe you could tell use what Woodley is wrong about?

[heatmiserfl]

@Chen019

@ heatmiserfl,

Maybe you could tell use what Woodley is wrong about?

Of course not and I posted the reason why.

[septimus]

@heatmiserfl

Maybe you could tell use what Woodley is wrong about?

Of course not and I posted the reason why.

Wow. :smack:

I lack the expertise to back either dog in this fight, but one thing is very VERY clear:

This is one of those “scientific” debates where political correctness trumps “science.” The “correct” side prevents publication for contrary views, then points to the lack of such papers as evidence for their side. When such a paper does sneak through with calm facts presented, it’s the messenger rather than the facts that are attacked.

In this case Mr. heatmiserfl is happy to attack messenger Woodley without even direct innuendo, just some innuendo that there’s an innuendo. :smack:

[Chen019]

@heatmiserfl

Of course not and I posted the reason why.

No, as septimus points out, you’ve just attacked the messenger. This is a debate, it would be helpful if you could explain to everyone what is wrong with Woodley’s argument.