Question about race: not real?

[tomndebb]

The people who claim that “race doesn’t exist” seem to dance around when you try to pin them down on what they actually mean.

Piffle.

Go back to the dozen or so threads that are linked from the first link I posted. I have stated almost in every thread that “race” can be defined culturally. That is: people in specific locales can point to different groups within those locales and sort them into basic groups based on appearance. In practical terms, this means that the U.S. population that is overwhelmingly descended from Europeans can generally identify large numbers of minority populations as having migrated from Africa or Southeast Asia. (It also means that people who use those cultural perceptions as universals will find that they have made serious errors when they apply their definition of “Negro” to a Fijian or Andoman Islander and asume that they come from Africa or when they assume that a person with either Aztec or Samoan ancestry is actually of the other group.) I suspect that in Beijing or Hanoi, it is relatively easy to spot people whose ancestors grew up near Lesotho or Helsinki. Therefore, as a very rough indicator of origin, “race” can be used as a culturally defined construct. I have never claimed that no one can identify a race. I have noted that such identifications are based on cultural assumptions that are not supported by biologists and geneticists who have discovered that there are no markers that are sufficient to identify any group biologically as a coherent race.

Collounsbury typically takes a slightly different tack: the point he makes, repeatedly, is that when humans are divided into populations according to genetic evidence, none of those genetic populations can be “mapped onto any of the classically defined races.” He is always very specific when asked what he means that “race does not exist.” There is no prevarication or confusion regarding his actual statements on the issue.

A claim that we “dance around” the issue indicates that either one has not actually read our statements or that one has deliberately ignored points that we have posted.

[Belowjob]

• So I decide I’m black…Afro-American…right or wrong*

There’s no such thing as a generic black person. There are black Americans - genetically a mixture of African, Native American and European ancestry.

There are Africans, who identify primarily by their ethnic group and religion, say Hausa Muslims, or Yoruba Christians. Each
African ethnic group tends to have a distinct physical appearance, so it’s usually easy to tell which group a person belongs to by sight. In Africa ethnic group functions, socially, the same way that race does in the US, with the same potential for discrimination, rivalry, and violence. So the idea of the generic black person is absurd in this context.

There are Afro-Caribeans, also a mixture of African, European and other ancestry, who identify primarily by their nationality and socio-economic class, say middle class Jamaicans, or upper class Haitians. Not only do these folks not see themselves as black Americans, most of them don’t even like black Americans.

Can you decide that you’re a black American? No, no more than you can decide that you’re English or Japanese. Being a black American is a function of history and culture, the family that raised you, the neighborhood you grew up in, the church where you worship, the food you eat etc.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by tarpal *
More politically-correct nonsense. Tell us then, why do black couples predictably have babies with dark skin, kinky hair, black eyes and broad noses, while chidren of white couples have pale skin, straight hair, narrow noses and light-colored eyes?

So what race is the offspring of the son of a black skinned, kicky haired African man and a pale, red-headed Irishwoman who marries a Chinese girl?

[Irishman]

Well, thanks for the good answers. That helps a lot.

Though bibliophage, I’m pretty sure this thread didn’t turn into a debate until you moved it. It was just one guy pissing in the well. Oh well.

David Simmons said:

And, of course, there is always this question. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that “race” is well defined and you can sort people into “races.” What are you going to do with that information? What purpose is served by that sorting?

What purpose is served by any identification of groups? Athletes vs. non-athletes, jugglers vs. non-jugglers, Straight Dopers vs. non-Straight Dopers… there’s a difference, a distinction, and so it’s identified. It doesn’t make a value judgement on the different groups to recognize there are different groups.

[astorian]

This is, potentially, a very offensive analogy, but I’ll risk it.

Ultimatley, humans are humans, just as dogs are dogs. Genetically, there isn’t all that muich which separates a Great Dane from a Chihuahua, or a St. Bernard from a Shih-tzu. In the same way, there isn’t all that much difference, genetically, between Irish Astorian and a Pygmy, between a Jew and an Apache, between a Korean and an Australian aborigine. All humans are more alike than unalike, just as all dogs are more alike than unalike.

That said, ARE there different groups within each species with characteristics and traits that make them stand out from the rest of the species? Of course! And those differences are what we use to sort dogs into “breeds” and people into “races.” And when we discuss such characteristics in dogs, almost nobody gets offended. If a kennel owner makes sweeping statements like “Irish Wolfhounds are a lot bigger than Yorkshire Terriers,” or “Greyhounds are much faster than Bassetts,” hardly anybody makes angry objections. Those are facts, and we can state those facts without fear of hurting anyone’s feelings.

Now, we CAN’T discuss human differences so casually. First, because there are always political implications to such discussions. And second, because “race” is a much more complicated notion than people make it out to be. Unfortunately, wehn people use the term “race,” what they invariably mean is “color.” And that’s what makes discussion of HUMAN differences different from inoffensive discussions of dog differences.

Look, there are black poodles and white poodles, black Labradors and Golden Labradors, black dachshunds and reddish dachshunds, black pugs and brown pugs… but NOBODY would put a black poodle, a black pug, a black Lab, a black dachshund and, say, a black mastiff together, and call them a separate dog breed just because they’re the same color! And yet, when humans speak of “race,” that’s almost exactly what they do!

While “race” isn’t an utterly invalid concept, it makes no sense to use COLOR as shorthand for “race.” There’s as much variance WITHIN peoples of any particular color as there is BETWEEN people of different colors. Again, Irish Astorian is somewhat different genetically from a Pygmy… but color is the LEAST of our differences, and there are “white” peoples whose DNA differs from mine almost as much as the Pygmy’s. And there are numerous black peoples in Africa whose DNA differs as substantially from the Pygmy’s as mine does.

So, while “race” in humans is as legitimate a topic of discussion as “breed” in dogs, the WAY that humans usually discuss “race” is invalid, because it’s too closely tied to just one characteristic: color.

[smiling_bandit]

I think what Astorian is trying to do is seperate the idea of Ethnicity from race. That right?

You are totally correct to do so.

[astorian]

Bandit- that’s certainly PART of what I was trying to do.

We all tend to repeat ourselves in these forums, and I’m not exception. I’ll repeat a point I’ve made before. Three hundred years ago, white Englishmen regarded my equally white Irish ancestors as the scum of the Earth, barely human. Heck, as recently at 1856, we had a Presidential candidate (Millard Fillmore) whose main issue was keeping Irish immigrants out of the United States.

Today, of course, many Americans of English descent and many Americans of Irish descent largely regard each other as part of a larger “white” race. Now, I suppose it’s to my benefit that the Irish have moved up a bit on a perceived social hierarchy, but really… what’s changed since 1856? If we Irish were a subhuman “race” then, why aren’t we now? Why do we get to be honorary WASPs?

For that matter, we Irish certainly don’t look like Russians, Iranians, Italians or Jews. About the only thing we all have in common is (relatively) fair skin. Is THAT alone to make us a common “race” in any meaninful sense?

I can’t see how.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Irishman *

David Simmons said:
What purpose is served by any identification of groups? Athletes vs. non-athletes, jugglers vs. non-jugglers, Straight Dopers vs. non-Straight Dopers… there’s a difference, a distinction, and so it’s identified.**

But sorting into athletes and non-athletes has a value if I want to start up a sports team. Sorting into chess players and non-chess players has a value if I want to hold a chess tournament. Sorting into jugglers and non-jugglers has a value if I want to hire entertainment acts for for a vaudville show or circus. So I don’t think your point has any validity. What can be done along those same lines with the sorting into Caucasian and non-Caucasian?

As for me, I wouldn’t sort into Straight Dopers and non-Straight Dopers because there would be little value in such a sort.

**It doesn’t make a value judgement on the different groups to recognize there are different groups. **

Aye, there’s the rub. I strongly suspect that sorting into different races is usually done for the purpose of making a value judgement on the different races. Biologists, anthropologists, sociologists and others who have looked into the matter carefully say that such sorting has zero meaning or value in their field. What is left besides making a value judgement?

[Irishman]

astorian, is it really an equivalent comparison between races in humans and breeds in dogs? (I don’t mean value judgement, I mean biologically.) Any weigh-ins from you other guys?

Unfortunately, wehn people use the term “race,” what they invariably mean is “color.” And that’s what makes discussion of HUMAN differences different from inoffensive discussions of dog differences.

I suppose the majority do use it that way, though my intent would be more along the notion of separating Pygmies from Zulus and Irish from Norse, as much as Africans from caucasians. But that’s just me, and apparently there’s no validity to that method. (Apparently ethnicity is what I’m talking about, anyway.)

I said:

It doesn’t make a value judgement on the different groups to recognize there are different groups.

David Simmons replied:

Biologists, anthropologists, sociologists and others who have looked into the matter carefully say that such sorting has zero meaning or value in their field. What is left besides making a value judgement?

Well, now that you say there is no validity, I guess nothing. My point was in abstract - to say there are differences is not to make a value judgement, any more than to say that men and women are different is to imply women are less important.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by edwino *
Sigh, lucwarm. Neither tomndebb, Collounsbury, or I, to the best of my knowledge, have ever claimed that race doesn’t exist.

Interesting, then, that you felt the need to respond to my post, eh? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Anyway, even without digging around through all the past threads, it’s easy enough to show that your position is a moving target:

**Scientifically, it has no meaning, and so race, as a scientific concept, does not exist. It doesn’t bother sociologicists that they can’t draw a hard and fast line around a group which they consider a “race”. For scientists, it totally obliterates the idea of race.

**

So are you saying that any grouping for which you “can’t draw a hard and fast line” around groups does not exist as a scientific concept?

Would you care to offer a precise definition of “hard and fast”?

[Telemark]

Scientific means biological, in this case. There is no classification of race that makes any sense to a biologist. Why is this so difficult to accept.

For race to have a biological meaning you must be able to classify someone as a member of a particular race. There is no method that works for all humans. Therefore, race doesn’t have a biological significance. You need criteria that can classify any individual to one “race” without question. Since this can’t be done (and in fact no one can come up with a definition of “race” that people agree on) it’s a pointless exercise.

Socialogically, race has meaning. You can ask someone what race they belong to, or have a panel of people decide. But that isn’t something that makes sense on a biological level.

[Tars_Tarkas]

“pure” dog breeds are results of massive inbreeding. And some commettee of dog people decide what is a dog breed and what isn’t. There are no such rules in place for humanity, and i bet even if there were, most people would be under Mutt. There are realitively few “pure” human breeds, people have mapped out genetic lines from several isolated Pacific islands, and found the populations weren’t as isolated as they thought (somebody came there and had lots of fun!). (no, no cite, as i saw this in a lecture last night). Humans are not as diverse as we like to think we are. That guy who looks totally different from you is more alike that you realize, both genetically and socialogically. A lot of American blacks and whites have mixed ancestors, Indians are mixed everywhere, both intertribally and inter-racially. Indians also have a lose definition of who is an Indian, but that is more to see who qualifies for federal programs than to tatoo numbers on their arms.

[sub]This post is a mess, but i don’t feel like spending the time to fix it, especially if people can’t get the point after being beaten by hammers[/sub]

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**“pure” dog breeds are results of massive inbreeding. And some commettee of dog people decide what is a dog breed and what isn’t. **

And besides, sorting dogs by breeds makes sense because they were originally bred for different purposes. That is, if you want to pull a heavy sled over the snow you wouldn’t order a team of Pomeranian’s from the kennel. Likewise, if what you were after was a pet to keep in an apartment in Manhattan, a Great Dane or Irish Wolfhound wouldn’t be the best choice.

Classifying dogs by breed has a utility that classifying humans by race doesn’t. Or at least no one has yet shown what that utility might be.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
**“pure” dog breeds are results of massive inbreeding. And some commettee of dog people decide what is a dog breed and what isn’t. **

And besides, sorting dogs by breeds makes sense because they were originally bred for different purposes. That is, if you want to pull a heavy sled over the snow you wouldn’t order a team of Pomeranian’s from the kennel. Likewise, if what you were after was a pet to keep in an apartment in Manhattan, a Great Dane or Irish Wolfhound wouldn’t be the best choice.

Classifying dogs by breed has a utility that classifying humans by race doesn’t. Or at least no one in this thread has yet shown what that utility might be.

I still can’t quite see why some want so urgently to hang on to the idea of race as a sorting criterion when those who might have some use for a sorting method say, after long and hard study, that it is useless for that purpose.

[shelbo]

*Originally posted by astorian *
**
Look, there are black poodles and white poodles, black Labradors and Golden Labradors, black dachshunds and reddish dachshunds, black pugs and brown pugs… but NOBODY would put a black poodle, a black pug, a black Lab, a black dachshund and, say, a black mastiff together, and call them a separate dog breed just because they’re the same color! And yet, when humans speak of “race,” that’s almost exactly what they do!
**

This is a good point. Additionally, people should realize that in order for a breed to be recognized as a separate breed, the genetic differential must be larger than the greatest differential that even exists in humans. That is, the genetic differences between a golden retreiver and a german shepard are many times greater than the difference between an albino pygmy and Manute Bol.

Further on this point, in 1966 (this has been known for a while) the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined mtDNA estimated mutation rates of gorillas, and compared them to that of humans. The findings supported previous research showing that modern humans are remarkably less diverse genetically than are the great apes. 'The most different humans on the face of the earth are less different than two lowland gorillas from the same forest in West Africa."

A sports writer has a book out that claims athletic superiority of blacks, and he uses the breeds of dogs argument. The problem is that if you look at any real scientific research on the subject, that argument is shown to be hot air. The fact of the matter is that humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species on the planet.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by astorian *
That said, ARE there different groups within each species with characteristics and traits that make them stand out from the rest of the species? Of course! And those differences are what we use to sort dogs into “breeds” and people into "races."

“Breeds” are artificial constructs, not natural ones. The traits possessed by said breeds are there because they are bred to be there. Breeds are therefore not analogous to any concept of “race” in humans.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**

. . .

A claim that we “dance around” the issue indicates that either one has not actually read our statements or that one has deliberately ignored points that we have posted. **

I’m not necessarily making a claim about you specifically. (Mainly because I don’t have the energy right now to go digging through old threads. But I might very well make such a claim about you.)

In any event, I have read many of these “race” threads. I’ve read, very carefully, what each side says, and I stand behind my earlier comment.

I’ve tried to illustrate my point by putting a couple questions to edwino. It will be interesting to see how he responds.

[tomndebb]

In any event, I have read many of these “race” threads. I’ve read, very carefully, what each side says, and I stand behind my earlier comment.

Hmmm?

From http://www.eneubauer.com/

From a strict biological and genetic perspective, races do not exist. Attempts by scientists to categorize people into distinct “races” based on outward physical appearances and genetic composition have failed to produce any coherent or valid groupings.

From Races don’t exist
Collounsbury:

Current genetic data indicates that no cluster of traits vary by race (using race in the normal, popular sense) in a coherent manner, ergo the operation is useless. Geneticists prefer the term populations when trying to define coherent (in terms of packages of alleles or distributions thereof) groupings, for the obvious reason that race has far too much baggage and the popular understanding (black, white, yellow schema) far too deeply entrenched to reform.

tomndebb:

I think the concept of race can be a useful, if flawed, tool for anthropological and social/political discussions. Certainly we can find occasions where the perceptions of race have figured into the decisions and actions of of groups of people. Whether it would be beneficial to replace the word “race” with another term, I am not sure. In the interests of communicating ideas regarding the treatment and perception of groups, the word has already (for better or worse) established itself in the language.

The problem occurs when we try to apply those perceptions to biological reality. The evidence (as copiously cited by Collounsbury) indicates that we do not have any way to genetically determine any group that we would call a race (unless we break “race” down into so many tiny populations that the word becomes meaningless).

From Differences between humans
Collounsbury:

Now, about defining race. Well, the question of skin pigmentation is considerably different from the question of “race”. Skin pigmentation is easy to define, although as the negrito and African example shows, says absolutely nothing about relatedness. “Race” on the other hand is a not very useful abstraction of the distribution of alleles in a few genes.

As far as pigmentation goes, dark skin is selected for in the tropics (helps prevent skin cancer) and apparently some of the ‘african’ features to boot, so it’s likely our common ancestors, who lived in the tropics, were pretty dark and maybe had some ‘africanesque’ features, or a pot-pourri of our modern range of features.

As far as the other stuff, there are not three or four big races. Tere is a single species with a great many populations of fairly minor variations in allelic distribution, some of which were separated from other populations by only partially effective geographic or perhaps geo-social barriers. But the populations differ only in the frequencies of various alleles, there being no alleles fixed within or private to particular “races” (although the PNAS article, the cite still escapes me, claimed in 98 that they had nailed an “African” and “non-African” private allele, but as I said, they failed to sample the likely transitional Africans, weird oversight at best). And the places where frequencies change at one locus are not in general the same places where frequencies change at other loci. You get a big muddle.

Simply put, if there are races, we should be able to point to geographical boundaries between races. I’ll get a little technical, since I just dug up some old cites by accident: Most genetic trees put African mitochondria as paraphyletic (A group is said to be paraphyletic if it consists solely of forms that share a single most recent common ancestor which is included in the group, but does not contain all such forms) to the rest of humanity. If you want to define races as clades (at least mitochondrial clades) then you need several “black” African races -and what are they going to be? Where are the lines going to be drawn- as well as a race including some “black” Africans and everyone else also. In order to find races you have to characterize the boundary, not the core areas.

From So, What’s the matter with eugenics?

Collounsbury:

Race is a fuzzy abstraction which attempts to describe a range of physical features (take your pick, dark skin, light skin etc.) through presumed homogenous descent and biological homogeniety. Although careful observers had noted long ago that race lacked a real coherency and that there were always people who did not fit into the categories, one has to acknowledge it was a natural attempt at classifying folks. However, it failed as an attempt at describing human populations, and the clear genetic evidence has dismissed prior assumptions of common descent (or rather has stressed a different kind of common descent for all humanity, given how genetic variation maps out.) Nonetheless, there is nothing to stop people from defining races on a pseudo-biological basis, as we do in the USA: dark skin and curly hair = black. etc. Never mind a black man from Timor would fit this category perfectly and yet be more closely related, all other things being equal, with a Vietnamese fellow.

. . .

Try checking out, for a general discussion: Goodman, Allan. “The Problematics of “Race” in Contemporary Biological Anthropology.” in Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science 1995. Among some things other things to read are Cavalli-Sforza, L Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; & Piazza, Alberto. “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races,” in _The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press (Princeton, 1994): 19-20.

In regards to the later, the authors explain how genetic information abundantly proves that there are no distinct “races” in the human species. The number of “races” identified by recent authors who cling to the “race” concept ranges from 3 to 60. “Race” classifications are arrived at without consistent criteria. C-S et al note that there is without question only one human species. All attempts to find smaller groupings within the human species are entirely arbitrary. Gene frequencies vary so greatly within particular populations that they prove useless for distinguishing among geographically defined populations. Even the most isolated human groups carried with their founders diverse sets of genes; large regions of the world are all well known to have experienced many migrations and consequent exchanges of genes.

C-S et al conclude “From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to gain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis. . . .”

. . .
The data indicates that we are among the most genetically homogenous mammalian species known. (Meaning our level of variation is substantially lower than most other species) The morphological features represent a trivial level of genetic variation, however striking to the eye they may be, as do blood groups etc. And as Tom and I have repeatedly pointed out, these variations do not map onto races. (Gee this sounds familiar, no?

The data (from population genetics) tells us that most variation (our heterogeniety) is at the individual level which overwhelms the amount of variation which maps onto populations, however defined.

tomndebb:

I’m just not sure why this insistence that there are biological races. If no “race” has clear markers in 100% of the population, and no markers appear to be exclusive to any “race”, and we cannot even come up with a number of genuine “races”, it seems to be a waste of time to try to claim some sort of biological reality.
Culturally, we can identify a few general populations of people. Some of them have suffered political and economic discrimination because of their appearance. However, we cannot develop a medicine for any “race’s” disease’s; there are groups who are more or less susceptible to various ailments, but there are no ailments that are exclusive to any group and no groups that are 100% immune or 100% susceptible to any specific disease.

Biologically, what is the point?

. . .

That has been my point. There are characteristics that show up with greater frequency among people who have lived (and bred) together longer, but there is no way to identify with certainty the “race” of any particular individual.

Therefore, “race” is a construct of commonly occurring characteristics, but is not a determinant for any individual. If no individual can be identified clearly as belonging to a race, then what purpose does “race” serve? It is not an objective reality. It is a category of perception. Cultural, not biological.
(The “language” and “clothes” aspects of culture are irrelevant, here. Race is “created” by placing certain groups of people into categories, then defining enough rules to put a boundary around those groups while labelling everyone who falls outside those artificial boundaries as “multi-racial.” The biological “fact” rests on cultural definitions of who is to be put inside the boundaries.

I am not arguing that “race” is the product of “racism.” I am pointing out that the “Three Races” of the nineteenth century have NO biological significance and that, if we keep dividing by perceived traits, we arrive at hundreds of races rather than a few. The six races currently used by Cultural Anthropologists indicate patterns of migration and contact. As such, they provide Jared’s “shorthand” for discussing human history. Beyond that, they become meaningless when attempts are made to define them. The best we get to through biology is that an individual has x% chance of appearing in group Z. Hardly a biological fact.

From Why are there black people?
tomndebb:

Those of us who have posted on the subject of the three racial groups do not “hate them,” we recognize that they do not exist except in culturally created boxes that have no biological reality. (Among anthropologists, for whom the concept of race has a useful (if limited) purpose, the number of races identified tends to run between six and eight with some “ethnic” divisions running up near 60. The old “three races” has had no legitimate academic support for many years.)

Collounsbury:

If you are arguing for the macro races you are one more wrong. However, as I pointed out several times before --perhaps not in this thread come to think of it-- smaller population structures will of course describe much more accurately. However none of these would come close to race, we’re really looking at thousands of different populations.

However, race per se (as the word is popularly understood, if we redefine it in some new way, well, we have a new term. But population genetics already prefers “populations”) is not a useful tool for it creates a false and deceptive sense of homogeniety which contrary to the assertion will not help in understanding human genetics, but rather will impede it.

That is in fact why folks like Cavalli-Sforza reject race – because they have found the concept gets in the way of accurately and critically addressing the history of human populations and indeed current populations genetics – again because of the fallacious presumption of intra-group homogeniety.

That took about 20 minutes of research on threads linked from my original link (add some more time for manual C&P). The arguments used are exactly those that I have claimed that we have presented.

I did not happen to trip over any posts by edwino, and he may spend less time addressing that issue, in general, although I belive the statement I quoted from the web site is his. However, if you “stand behind” your “earlier comment” you are choosing to stand behind an error. We clearly acknowledge a culturally-based categorization of “race” while clearly pointing out how and why it has no objective biological reality. No dancing.

One can use physical characteristics (which are expressions of genetic activity) to visually segregate some large, vaguely defined large groups. This is a cultural phenomenon. (It is also an inaccurate classification since people who are less closely related would be lumped together based on appearance while people who are more closely related would be excluded from such groups.)

One cannot find any genetic component that can be used to identify race: no blood type, no susceptibility to disease, no constelletion of genetic alleles is limited to any of the 3 or 5 or 60 “races” created by the cultural perceptions based on appearance. One can find smaller populations in which some blood types are more prevalent or some diseases are more prevalent. However, none of those populations is sufficiently large to be classified as a “race” and none are sufficiently distinguishable, visually, to be segregated biologically into a “race.”

So. What do you think a “race” might be in terms of biology? What specific genetic alleles can we test for to identify that “race.” What physical characteristics are unique to that group?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**
[a lengthy selection regarding race]
However, if you “stand behind” your “earlier comment” you are choosing to stand behind an error.
**

It is natural that you should think so, since nobody likes to believe that their position is inconsistent or arbitrary. However, I think I can demonstrate my point without too much trouble:

**

We clearly acknowledge a culturally-based categorization of “race” while clearly pointing out how and why it has no objective biological reality. No dancing.
**

Ok then, how about taking a crack at the questions I posed to edwino earlier?

Certainly if you’re not “dancing,” it shouldn’t be too hard to provide a principled reason for your position, right?

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by edwino *
**Not to give a genetics lecture, but I saw Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) talk this weekend. He gave a great talk about taking apart multifactorial disease. Tars may be interested because it was all about polymorphisms and haplotype analyses. **

I’m flattered someone remembers what i do for a living!
But for the OP, this link says

the citizens of any given village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer.

I’m trying to find an actual chart that shows how different races aren’t that different after all, but there are too many search results coming up that all say the same think, noe with a good chart, and i have to do some work. Maybe later