Well, no, but they might very well respond that the “Virginianess” or “Marylandness” of the subjects is not relevant, but rather the surrounding environment.
In re your second question: constructs should be useful. Insofar as the consensus in population genetics is that race is not a useful category and does not in any way meaningfully describe variation, it is to be discarded in re biological uses. Human society is an entirely different question only tangentially related.
Please do consult the copious links as these questions have been done to death.
Sorry. People have long recognized that other people “looked different” than they did. Howeve, the concept that there were, in fact, “races” of people who had some specific biological connection is, at best, 240 years old. The word race has only been used to identify families (i.e., groups of closely related people descended from a single common ancestor) for about 500 years and was only extended to include broad groups of people in the late eighteenth century.
Given the climate of the period, in which Europeans had begun to use the newly emerging sciences to justify their domination of other groups, its appearance at that time is more than a bit suspect. In other words, that “science” was driven by politics.
As to the correlation of physical appearance and “race,” there are probably 50 posts in the last few months pointing out that the totally unrelated Negritos of South East Asia are, to many people, indistinguishable from several groups of Africans. That a correlation was surmised on appearance was understandable; that it is clearly a case of convergence, not race, is undeniable.
If you want to say that Zeus exists in the sense that he is a lightning-toting philandering character in European mythology, then you are correct; Zeus does exist.
If you want to say that Zeus exists as lightning-toting philandering being running around independent of people’s imagination, then you are incorrect. (Barring the possible future discovery of evidence indicating immortals with voracious sexual appetites and considerable powers of static discharge.)
Race exists in the same fashion Zeus does: in the minds of men, not in objective reality independent of human imagination.
when the smart people conflate two issues while they’re debunking the ignorant statements of demonstrably ignorant posters (I’m not identifying any ignorant posters here).
fatherjohn, in his (IMHO) ill-advised insistence on defending the unmodified thesis of his OP, brought up the argument of the existence of states, then supported :rolleyes: his argument with a hypothetical situation that was evidently intended to demonstrate the validity of the concept of distinguishable states.
He did not assert that the denizens of different states were of different races. Yet the thrust of the responses to the argument that he did make appears to assume that he did make such an assertion.
I bring this up because I find his arguments to be non-compelling, and his analogies to be deficient.
(Yes, fatherjohn, states do exist as separate entities. But their existence is a result of the decisions made within a cultural framework. They do not, in the main, exist as separate entities because of any geographical or geological properties that they may possess or exhibit. Where such geographical or geological differences are apparent in the setting of borders, such differences will be attributable to the inconveniences inherent in traversing physical obstacles at the time the cultural decisions were being made.}
I just don’t think it’s a good idea for the smart people to give him any excuse to take the conversation onto a tangent about what he did or didn’t say about the evolutionary ancestry of Marylanders, and how it contrasts with that of Virginians.
So, fatherjohn, confining yourself to the field of biology, if you please, could you answer tom’s question about which races you find to be biologically unique?
If the experiments measure heterogeneities in both coding and ‘junk’ DNA, yet all possible “racial” differences are necessarily confined to only those regions which are expressed, then variations in the ‘junk’ DNA act as a source of noise behind which any relevant variations can be lost.
Your point about classical genetic markers failing to map along racial lines is well taken, but the markers themselves are not as tightly coupled to gene products as might be desired. The gene sequence data for expressed genes will not suffer from this ambiguity. This leaves room for considerable waffling as to what the relevance of the classical markers is anymore. Whether race survives as a valid concept in 50 years is likely to depend far more on sequence data than on comparisons of chromosome banding patterns and restriction enzyme digests. Why are we in a hurry to settle this NOW when far better evidence is just around the corner ? It’s not as if being a little patient here would cause us all to drown when the ice caps melt.
Our differences over whether the law of large numbers is applicable here seems to arise from the different types of evidence we are considering.
Yes, I got sloppy there. Distributions of markers it is.
Politics:
I’m not claiming that at all ! Only that the scientific argument in this thread has flaws in it, and that all the other evidence given here so far has been of a political nature.
Yes, but population geneticists are no longer the sole source of evidence one way or another !
Perhaps you have to be a protein chemist to find such things interesting ?
I chose the example of state borders because such borders are (somewhat?) arbitrary. Similarly, the lines between races are arguably (somewhat?) arbitrary. You respond by pointing out that state lines are somewhat arbitrary. Honestly, I don’t understand your point.
Make no mistake, I’m absolutely not trying to argue that any race is “biologically unique.” Most likely, the lines between races are like political borders: A few rivers; a few mountain ranges; and plenty of arbitrary lines.
What am I trying to argue then?
Well, some people hold that “there is no such thing as race.” (Sometimes this is qualified by saying that this only applies in the context of science.)
I think this is ridiculous.
How do I propose to show this is ridiculous?
By applying the logic of these people to other distinctions and classifications and showing that it leads to ridiculous results, such as “there’s no such thing as states.”
If you think I’ve somehow “cooked the books” by choosing state borders, then feel free to propose some other commonly used distinction or classification that is somewhat arbitrary. I would prefer that you choose something that is not politically charged. (i.e. stay away from religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, etc, as those subjects will likely generate a lot more “heat” than “light” if you know what I mean.)
I think the “nature v. nurture” debate is fascinating but beyond the scope of this thread. But here’s what I’m complaining about: Let’s suppose somebody does a big study and concludes that Marylanders are three times as likely to die from leukemia than Virginians. This is an interesting result that is worthy of debate. Was the study done improperly? Is there some kind of bias at work? Are state lines acting as a proxy for some other factor (e.g., maybe there’s an unshielded nuclear reactor in Annapolis) etc. etc. etc. To try to cut off this debate by claiming “there’s no such thing as states” would be dishonest and lame, for lack of a better word.
First I take issue with the phrase “biological evidence for race” for several reasons.
Mainly, race, like any other classification, is an artifical construct. Thus it’s sort of a mismatch to talk about “evidence for race” as if you were talking about evidence for the loch ness monster or for snuff films.
I’ll express my other reasons (and answer the first question) if you clear up what you mean by no “evidence for race.”
Next question: If I understand what you mean by “objective reality,” I don’t believe any races have objective reality. Which U.S. States have objective reality?
Last question: The reason I care is that I object to scientific dishonesty. Racial distinctions are held (by some) to an impossibly high standard when compared to other distinctions. This double-standard exists because many people find racial distinctions offensive and hurtful.
Be honest and say “people (scientists?) shouldn’t make racial distinctions” rather than “there’s no such thing as race (in the context of science?)”
Exactly. As opposed to sex, which has a reality outside any human created or imposed clasifications.
I have evidence for sex. (Barring a few unfortunate individuals whose genetic message has gotten messed up), humans that bear an XX gene are capable of giving birth to children; humans bearing an XY gene are not capable of bearing children, but can provide genetic material to the bearer of an XX gene that, when combined with genetic material from the XX bearer allows that human to conceive a child and give birth. Clear evidence of an objective reality outside human-imposed “meaning” on the data.
There is no (currently known) similar objective evidence to identify “race” in humans.
As noted, already, humans can and have applied the concept of “race” in anthropological and cultural settings. However, when they attempt to take those constructs and impose them on biological reality (claiming that race x is more or less smart/fast/mathematical/artistic/musical/peaceful/cooperative than other humans), there is no biological test to identify that “race.” Dark skin occurs in numerous populations. Epicanthic folds appear in several populations. Several different and unrelated groups have physical appearances that are so similar that they cannot be differentiated by outsiders. Yes. “Biology” provides the study of what aspect of growth gives us our physical features, but there is nothing outside of cultural preferences that lumps different groups of people together to call them a race.
And how low a standard do you wish to set to establish races? What purpose does identifying imaginary races serve?
Since every classification of race thus far has been used to separate or subjugate one group of humans to another, what is the purpose of insisting that this arbitrary cultural construct has a biological reality?
It is not being dishonest to note that race is imaginary, (i.e., race is not “real”), it is an effort to force people to face the fact that claiming any “trait” for a “race” is simply the imposition of culture masking as science.
“currently known” is the correct qualifier here, It just needs to be propagated freely through the rest of your arguments. We are about to experience an explosion of information about genetic variations in human populations. No doubt it will change all sorts of preconceptions people have about what it means to be human. That makes this a poor time to hold tightly to ANY opinion on the biological significance of race. No doubt some overly clever scientist will shortly come up with a small set of genes that produce “desirable” traits in the individuals who carry them, including outwardly apparent features, and then figure out how to insert the genes into fertilized eggs. She will thus have turned race into a biological reality, regardless of whether it ever arose through natural processes.
But whatever she may do in the future, it has not happened, yet.
Had you read the material already posted, you would note that those of us who oppose the idea of biological races have never done so on philosophical grounds. Each of us has noted that, given the right circumstances–including something as simple as physical separation for sufficient time–it is obvious that races, even new species, could arise.
The point is that the information indicates that they have not.
If the 21st century is, indeed, the Age of Biology, (and I think that is quite possible), then we probably will see changes to humanity rarely dreamt of before some of the science fiction of the 1980s.
Looking at the current situation, however, there is no evidence for races as a biological reality and all the speculative futures in the world do not change today’s reality. Minor quibble: if the SF writers got it right, every person would be tailored so uniquely by their parents/procreators, that humanity will be populated by such disparate individuals that there will still be no races, as few humans will have anything in common with others.
Races exist as a social tool to classify people easier.
State borders exist as a social tool to classify different regions easier.
Biologically, there is no difference (yet-discovered) in the genetic makeup of black people or Asian people that is unique to that race. In other words, the superficial characteristics that allow for the social definition of “race” do not exist only in a single race.
Geologically, boundaries between states do not exist. Does a mountain care if a committee decides that our maps will use it as the dividing line between “State 1” and “State 2”? Nope.
So, yes, races exist merely as a social tool, just like boundaries. But for all scientific intents and purposes, they are to be discarded (with the exception of factors that are a product of politics, such as the aforementioned “something in the water supply” example).
I hate to neglect a good exchange, but I have to make this brief bec of time commitments.
However, I do reject Squink’s position in re “poor time to hold any opinion” on the biological significance of race, and once more refer him to the consensus opinion as reflected in the literature.
Further comments:
Be that as it may, I do not believe that one could characterize the evidence to date as being largely derived from non-expressive regions. I had not given the issue thought, but I had rather the opposite impression as I don’t recall anyone complaining about or making this criticism which would hardly escape…
Well, it’s not just a matter of the classic markers, which are but one portion of the evidence which sprang to mind. I don’t have time to rereview presently, but given the data to date, I remain comfortable with the conclusion, with any appropriate degree of confidence you might choose, that the classical race concept is dead. What is presently in play is where and how to define populations, and given the nature of variation and how it breaks down, there may not be one answer, but many depending on what you want to focus on (and the nature of the question you want to answer).
Perhaps, however I think that given the nature of the question, i.e. the validity and utility of the classical race concept in biological terms, the sufficient data is already in during the past decade. In fact, I suggest that you are underplaying both the quantity and quality of the evidence, although we can leave some room open. However the weight of the evidence is clear. Thus the consensus which emerged to dump the idea: I know of no data at all which leads towards a conclusion that trait distributions map onto the classical races in any coherent way at all.
But note, differing distributions have never shown to be coherent across multiple traits.
Politics:
I’m unclear on this, but I seem to have misunderstood you. In re the scientific argument, I do not see this as being particularly flawed. You may prefer to frame the question differently of course, but while a precise statement of the scientific argument may require some hedging in regards to confidence intervals, I believe in regards to making a statement there is adequate support for the plain English statement that the idea of the classical races finds no support in biological reality. In past discussions I believe myself and others have tried to be clear on the nature of the evidence and also clearly signpost the issue not as a matter of whether there are population differences, but rather whether they map onto the classic races and indeed the larger issue of understanding variation. As al the data point towards the conclusion that the classic races don’t yield biologically meaningful results, it is better to discard the category and build new ones.
I don’t believe they ever were, however in terms of understanding how to approach the problems of defining population related issues, one should turn to those concentrating on the particulars. Of course, as far as I can tell, much work has been done by folks who are not specialized in the field per se (as opposed to say Cavalli-Sforza who is).
No, I just think the issue (classical races) is moot now. Understanding population structuring without the race lens is much more interesting and challenging.
In regards to the OP’s continued confusion:
The issue has been clearly argued in prior threads, however for your benefit:
The classic races do not describe biologically coherent entities. The superficial morphological similarities used to define race do not align themselves with any underlying genetic coherence. The same features have arisen more than once, separately under similar environmental conditions.
As such, the classic races are not useful entities and can be said not to exist, notwithstanding Squinks’ objections. It is incorrect, however, to say that one can not define groups on a biological basis, one can with perhaps varying degrees of utility. However they do not match the classic races.
There, no questions of “scientific dishonesty” or anything of the sort. If the OP would read further, he would be disabused of such notions.
There, I hope this help you understand the issue. Details, to the point of inducing nausea, may be found in prior threads or by pursuing some of the cited literature.
Forgive my oversight… that should read “the superficial characteristics that allow for the social definition of ‘race’ do not exist in the genetic structure of a single race… only that certain genes are activated (differently) among certain peoples in different regions.”
And I would add that I would rely far more heavily on Colloun’s words on this topic than mine, as most of my experience is derived from sources and posts he had provided in the past.
Chromosomes consist mostly (>90%) of non-expressed DNA.
Restriction enzymes cleave as readily outside and inside functional genes.
Even ignoring the evolutionary pressure to keep genes functional this implies that most of the heterogeneities picked up by restriction mapping will arise from non-expressive regions.
On the other hand, I maintain that nice clean sequence data will be a far better tool to examine these matters than has yet been available. A consensus based on research done with inadequate tools can easily be wrong.
We agree, If it’s present as a biological entity, it will probably end up having some sort of structure that we’ve never seen before. Denying the possibility of the existence of such structures before looking for them just seems like a poor method of conducting research.
I don’t understand what is meant by saying there is no such thing as “race”.
Doesn’t the differing incidence of things like sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease (or skin cancer in whites) imply a biological definition?
Please note that I am NOT wondering if races are separate species, nor am I inquiring about or affirming any differnces between races in intelligence or any other positive characteristic.
It just seems to be to be obvious that Jesse Jackson and Brittany Spears are members of different races.
Am I missing the point of the argument? If so, what is it?
If it helps, I will certainly posit that people have been treated shamefully based on their racial membership.
No, neither disease is racial in its breakdown. See the linked discussions. As for skin cancer in whites, it is no different than any other pale skinned folks – that is depending on your skin darkness you have more or less elevanted chances of developing skin cancer based on sun exposure. Insofar as skin color does not break down on racial lines, per the classic race definitions, there is not an actual racial question here.
In re Squinks comment on inadequate tools, I respectfully disagree with the characterization. In re his characterization of denying structuring of populations w/o looking, this is simply irrelevant and a mischaracterization of the research and the position as no one is not looking for population structuring, rather the preponderance of the evidence is completely negative on structuring of populations along the classic race lines.
To look at them, it should be equally obvious that Brittany Spears and John Goodman are members of different races. Equally obvious and equally false. Just because people look different from each other in certain ways does not mean that they are members of different races.
While the outward physical appearances of Brittany Spears and Jesse Jackson may lead one to conclude that they are of different races, when you look at the genetic makeup of the two, the differences may not be apparent at all.
Just to give you a example, an Australian Aborigione and a Bantu speaking person of Sub-Saharan Africa look very similar in their outward appearances (these are two populations whose genetic makeup have been examined). One would think that they can be grouped together into a “race” based on their outward physical appearances. However, when you examine the genetic makeup of the two, they are at the opposite ends of the genetic spectrum. That is, compared to all the other groups (populations) of people who have had their gentic makeup examined, they are the most dissimilar. If their gentic makeup is so dissimilar, they why do they look the same? Hence, the commonsensical notion of race based on outward physical appearances does not have any biological/genetic coherency. Other factors (such as environment, for example) are a better explanation for why people differ in their outward physical appearance.
While race might be useful as a “rule of thumb” concept in discussing societal/economic/cultural issues, as a valid scientific/biological construct, it isn’t very useful.
