SO many problems with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. But we’ll start with the two massive problems;
Nobody in the history of the world has ever considered Hopi and Navajo to be different races. The existence of groups that are *not *races can’t be used as evidence for the existence of groups that *are * races. It’s no different to arguing that races exist because I can tell a tram conductor from jai alai player.
There is no evidence that anybody *can *tell Hopi and Navajo apart with better than random success. As such this is simply begging the question. The evidence you suggest is even less well established than the conclusion it is intended to support.
That second problem isn’t trivial. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve asked the resident racists on this board to name the characteristics that allow them to assign people to races, and to then play a game where I post pictures, and they tell me what race the person belongs to and what characteristics they used to determine that.
Oddly enough, nobody will take me up on the challenge. Despite repeated the claims that races are clearly physically distinguishable, nobody has ever actually been able to physically distinguish them. That’s quite a hurdle.
Well, I didn’t say that Hopi and Navajo were “great races” along the lines of the classic “three races of mankind.” I’m holding the view that there are lots and lots of “little races,” physiologically distinctive groups of people. To me, this is so obvious as not to need defending. Does anyone seriously believe that all people look alike, and that there are no physical traits correlating (however strongly or weakly) to various ethnic groups?
Yes, obviously, you can find counter-examples. This does not disprove correlation. There are “black Japanese” and “white Somalians” and so on. That doesn’t counter the fact that, in a great majority of cases, a Japanese person can tell another Japanese person from a Somalian person by sight. As more people travel and intermarry, this effect will likely diminish.
I think there is a “middle view” here that seems to be overlooked. People don’t all look the same; this means something. It just doesn’t mean a hell of a lot, and it doesn’t seem to transfer over to intelligence.
Some ethnic groups do not look some other ethnic groups.
Hopi are an ethnic group
Therefore Hopi do not look like any other ethnic group.
See how you’ve gone from “some” to “all” without justifying the leap?
While it’s true that some ethnic groups do not look like other ethnic groups, the whole thing falls down once you accept that there is not a single ethic group anywhere can be distinguished from *all *other ethnic groups.
Let’s assume that Hopi really are physically distinct from Navajo. The problem is that the Navajo are not distinct from the Pueblo, and the Pueblo are not distinct from the Hopi. In other words, you may be able to tell a Hopi from a Navajo, but if I throw an equal number of Pueblo into the test, you will no longer be able to tell me what race someone is at better than chance.
Of course nobody suggest that all ethnic groups look alike. Of course a Tswana is immediately distinguishable from a Swede. That’s because you have selected two ends of a spectrum. But If I constructed a group made up of equal numbers of Swedes, Italians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Nigerians, you would immediately be unable to identify either Swedes or Tswana at better than random rates.
And that is why your "“little races” are just as scientifically invalid as the big races. It’s turtles all the way down. Any delineation that you make between two putative races, at any level, are utterly arbitrary. While anyone can indisputably differentiate a Tswana from a Swede with a cursory glance, there is no objective standard by which to classify someone as a Swede in the first place. No objective standard + no scientific validity.
To help you understand why this isn’t valid, let’s propose a race constructed of height. So I select a village in Belgium where everyone is taller than 5’4". Not hard to do. And I define this as a tall race. Then I select a village in the Congo where everybody is *shorter *than 5’4", and I call that my short race. Now we both agree that these “races” are obviously different. nobody seriously believes that people are all the same height, and that there are no height correlating to race correlating.
So that means that “Tall People” is a valid race. Right? Of course you don’t believe that. Just because I can differentiate the the populations on the extreme eds of a height spectrum, that doesn’t mean that “Tall” is a race. And we know it isn’t valid because the race vanishes as soon as we include people from *any *two intermediate villages.
And exactly the same is true of any other characteristics you use. There is no dispute that human characteristics form a spectrum, and that populations at the ends of those spectra can be differentiated. The reason why these groups aren’t valid races is precisely because, like height, the characteristics are spectra. There is no objective point at which you can say that a populations crosses from “tall” to “short”, or from “Hopi” to “Pueblo”.
This problem remains no matter what size your putative races are.
But they can’t tell a Somali from Dravidian, and they can’t tell a Dravidian from a Nepali, and they can;t tell a Nepali form a Hmong, and they can’t tell a Hmong from a Korean, and they can’t tell a Korean from a Japanese. Thy can’t make any of those distinctions at better than chance.
So why did you choose Japanese and Somali as distinct races? Why not a Japanese/ Dravidian/Nepali/Hmong/Korean race and a Somali race? Or why not a Somali/Dravidian/Nepali/Hmong/Korean race and a Japanese race?
By what objective standard did you draw your racial boundaries where you did? And by what objective criteria are you able to place people into these races?
If you can;t answer those questions, then you don’t have a scientifically valid categorisation scheme.
Yes, it means that genes run in families. The more closely related two people are, the more similar they look, and as the genetic distance increases, so too does appearance diverge.
That’s all that it means. It can’t be references d to race in any way at all, because races are just arbitrary end points with no objective reference.
I hope it’s OK to assume I’m in your category of “resident racist.” I don’t want to talk out of turn.
Perhaps we should return to this more fundamental issue, since the OP does title the thread, “Race is non-existent.”
When I use groupings, I try to retain the use of the term Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity. This “self-identification” is–by definition–a social construct.
There is no specific genetic marker that identifies “race.” There isn’t even a strict biological construct. (There are markers which can identify ancestral populations.) The game of posting a phenotypic appearance is a good example of how soft the boundaries of “race” are, particularly when those examples are chosen from admixed populations. Moreover, because we are talking about self-identification, we could post a photo of Navin Johnson and mark the answer “white” as incorrect. However this game is disingenuous if its intent is to imply that humans are a homogeneous gene pool such that each individual in a SIRE group has an equivalent chance of receiving from the same set of genes as any other SIRE group.
What is at issue is whether or not SIRE groups can have different prevalences for genes that drive average maximum performance difference outcomes given equivalent nurturing. It is important to understand that an average outcome is not a comment on an individual potential.
The evolution of genes and the history of human migrations has created prevalence differences for gene variants among populations. How many populations depends on whether you are a splitter or a lumper. At a genetic level, one can define Y-chromosomal and mtDNA (maternal) lines, and within a given group being studied, determine whether those ancestral lines are present or not.
Some surprisingly crude groupings give some surprisingly consistent prevalence differences. For example, the haplogroup D variant for MCPH1 is found in as much as 70% of descendant populations but barely (if at all) in african populations that are not descended from groups which left africa.
Ultimately, the term “race” is definitional. However this should not be taken to mean there are not genetically-determined average differences among SIRE groups, because the modern SIRE groups do reflect average genetic makeup from the region/continent of recent ancestral origin, and continents of recent ancestral origin contain populations not smoothly homogeneous with other regions for their genetic pools.
Many average differences are found between SIRE groups. For example, the average testosterone level is different for white and black males. The complaint is that such an average is only an average, and that is exactly right. On the other hand, it’s a genetically-driven average reflecting region of origin for the average gene pool for those SIRE groups.
I am not aware of any population geneticists who argue that genes do not vary by population, and I am not aware of any evolutionary scientists who argue that genes do not mutate with some advantageous mutations. I am not aware of any biological anthropologists who take issue with the basic out of africa migration patterns (with the exception of a few multi-regionalists invoking introduction of archaic homo genes into post-africa populations, but that would not alter the argument here).
In summary, you can argue away “race” definitionally, but you cannot argue away gene pool differences among populations. An advantageous mutation occurring after a population left a region would not be available to the ancestral population to the degree to which it is available for the post-mutation point population. An advantageous post L-3 mtDNA line mutation would not be available, for example, to the vast majority of sub-saharan african populations.
Of course, nobody in the history of the world has tried to argue against gene pool differences among populations. Have they?
In genetics, that is, in fact the definition of a population.
So you are in fact arguing against a position that absolutely nobody holds, or ever has held. But hey! Don’t let the fact that you are arguing against a straw man stop you.
Now as I will do you the courtesy of addressing your *actual *argument, not some strawman.
The reason why your *actual *argument is bullshit is because none of those populations corresponds to a race. Not one. This is a point that we have doe to death on these boards, so you know this as well as I do, As does anyone else who has followed those threads.
The simple fact is that not a single population with genes pool differences corresponds to a race or anything that anybody has ever called a race.
You can waffle on about SIRE groups and populations as much as you like, but it is just as much a red herring as the first day you brought it up. It is just as much a red herring as every other thread in which we demolished this rubbish.
It is a red herring because none of those groups are races. None of those groups have ever been called races. You can try to unilaterally define race to mean something else, but nobody else is buying it. You have no objective standard by which to measure any race by any standard used by anybody else.
That is why race does not exist in a biological sense. Because races are simply not not population with genes pool differences. No such differences exist between races.
And that is why all this bluster about SIRE groups and populations is just so much wind: because none of your populations is a race and no pre-defined races correspond to your populations.
“African populations that are not descended from groups which left Africa”** is not a race.**
“Extra African populations and African populations that are descended from groups which left Africa” is not a race
They never have races. Nobody has ever considered those populations to be races. There is no identifiable phenotype associated with those races.
**
Your populations are not races!**
So all your harping on about “MCPH1 being found in as much as 70% of descendant populations but barely (if at all) in african populations that are not descended from groups which left africa” is just a massive red herring.
The populations that you are able to identify genetically isn’t a race and never has been.
**
And the populations that are races and always have been you are utterly unable to identify genetically.
**
And that folks, is why the last 3 pages of contributions by Chief Pedant are nothing but a red herring. A prolonged attempt to baffle us with bullshit because he knows that he is utterly unable to answer the simple questions that have been put to him time and again in these threads:
What are the names of these races that you claim that you can objectively categorise people into?
Who else has ever considered such populations to be races?
What physiological features can we use to delineate these races?
We have asked Chief Pedant these questions time after time in these thread, and he is always utterly unable to answer them.
Instead he blusters and rants about populations such as “African populations that are not descended from groups which left Africa”. Populations that are not races and that even he cannot pretend to be races.
Because he cannot actually name any of these races that have an objective basis. He claims ad nauseum that races exist that have an objective basis. But he can’t actually name any.
That really tells us all we need to know about his position.
The color of skin doesn’t mean race to me. I know and have met Indians (From India ) who had blacker skin then many I know from an African back ground. Using color of skin, or where a person is from( in my opinion) has nothing to do with a person’s abilities or skin color. The use of the word race to separate peole is just away to justify a person’s predjudices.
I’m skeptical of this claim. Please show me your evidence or argument in support.
You don’t have experience of seeing tall people having short kids? Seeing short and tall siblings? Seriously?
Again, I am skeptical of this claim. Please show me your evidence or argument in support.
Ahh, Liberal Excuse Number 8764 for black under-performance – not enough books in the house. Tell me, do you have any evidence at all to support this hypothesis?
And if your hypothesis is correct, why has nobody “closed the gap” through the simple expedient of buying books and sending them to black people?
I’m skeptical of this too. Can you summarize the results of the tests you speak of and give me links? TIA
True, but nobody was mortally offended by the fact that fact that some pea plants have purple flowers and some pea plants have white flowers. Regardless of how much water or fertilizer you give them.
I’m quoting a CP post in the Pit thread so we can conduct the “debate” here rather than in the Pit.
Then don’t.
Right. And there isn’t any evidence. Which has been my point for most of the thread.
And to believe your hypothesis (without any evidence, mind you), you must believe in some immense coincidences: you believe that it’s just a coincidence that the poorest and lowest-scoring large ethnic group in America just happens to be the one that was the most brutally treated over the past several centuries- you believe that there is no causal link between these two things. You believe that it’s just blind “luck” that the “dumbest” American ethnic group (according to you) is the one that is descended from the most brutally treated- and you believe there is no causal link here. You believe that centuries of terrible treatment, physically, psychologically, and economically, do not continue to have effects on our media, culture, and the physical, psychological, and economic well being of these past victims’ descendants.
That’s quite a coincidence to believe in, with no evidence.
It would be possible- but all other possibilities have not even come close to being eliminated (and, of course, there’s no genetic evidence). Plus there’s the pesky issue of evidence that actually supports a non-genetic explanation.
How did you know they were from an Indian background and not adopted a couple of generations back from Denmark? I hope you didn’t just make that assumption based on how they look.
The “But You Haven’t Pointed to a Specific Gene” argument reminds me of hypothetical tobacco executives demanding to be shown the exact genes involved when smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
I agree with the gist of these arguments about the use of the term “race.”
I do not agree that african populations cannot be lumped into a group with gene pools that are genetically distinct from non-african populations, and in fact biological anthropologists do it all the time (as with, for example, the distribution of haplogroup D variant of MCPH1).
If an advantageous mutution occurs once any two groups have separated, and if that mutation is widely prevalent among one population and not the original one, the observed average outcomes will be distinct for the two populations, driven by the prevalence of the advantageous gene within one population and not the other.
Therefore, any prevalent advantageous mutations arising post L-3 mtDNA line would drive an outcome difference between these two groups: african and non-african. The average outcome difference would be diminished where there is at leas partial admixture of previously separated populations.
By extension, the same sort of situation holds for any two populations that split off from one another, so you can split populations by ancestral lineage to your hearts content.
I have no argument with the complaint that we should not call them “races” and no argument with a complaint that the term “race” is so broadly used as to render it biologically un-useful.
I do have a complaint with an argument that SIRE groups are unrelated to historical migration patterns. They are. They therefore reflect pools of genes that are disparate for prevalences. None of has the same genes, and our SIRE group self-assignment correlates roughly with which pools of genes from which we draw. This is more so as the SIRE group self-assignment comes from an individual in the originating region, but it is still true even with migrated populations.
An african self-assigning to “black” has a very low chance of getting a haplotype D variant for MCPH1. A european self-assigning to “white” has a 70% chance of getting the same gene.
I agree with discarding “race” as a biological construct. It’s easier, and less sensitive.
However people who infer from that that there are no genetic prevalence differences among SIRE groups are mistaken. I do not find my “inability to define race” as somehow indicative that my core position–outcome differences among SIRE groups has a strong genetic driver–is somehow faulty. It may be proved to be faulty, of course, but not because I am unable to define race.
I don’t want to talk out of turn.