Race is a very vague term, really.
In the way it’s used it seems to mean either:
A group of people who have been living in the same area without influx for some large(ish) number of years.
or
A group of people separable from other groups of people by some clear visible characteristic.
But, in reality, there are very few such ‘races’ that have not had intermixing with other races over a long enough period to make them truly, genetically, distinct from all other races.
Exactly. Scientifically, a race is exactly the same as a subspecies. By the commonly accepted scientific definition of a subspecies, we don’t cut it.
So, let’s not mince words. Let’s call them “subspecies” when we’re talking about biology. Does anyone thing there are subspecies of our extant species?
I don’t even know what ‘biologically determined race’ means, so I guess I don’t believe in it!
I’d have to say no. Humans are really the only animals that we’ve applied this term to. It is outdated and a loaded word. While many people would find the alternative more distasteful as it equates us animals and removes our special status, “breed” would be a far more accurate term. When we are talking about any other domesticated species, or wild species with a wide physical variation we use that term. Alternatively we could also use “morph” but that term is not really correct because humans have no base variety. Given that humans have wide physical variation that certainly is biologically determined, Human breeds or types exist certainly.
As to how many? that is more difficult. Europeans alone could be logically broken down into many categories. Africans even more probably. There are at least four or five Asian distinct types. Without getting overly specific, a general list might include the following, traveling from the north pole to south based on populations that have a distinct physical apperance:
Inuit/ Ainu
Nordic
Japanese
Rus
Northern First Nations
Tibetan
Germanic
Slavic
Anglo
Han Chinese
Central First Nations
Franco/ Spanish
South East Asian
Korean
Hindi/ Indian
Southwest First Nations
Arabic
North African
Central and South American First Nations
South (sub Saharan) African
Polynesian
Aboriginal
Obviously not comprehensive by any means, so at least 23, with the expanded list probably turning out around 30 or so if we do not count any intergrade populations.
Add Melanesian and Tasmanian Aboriginal to that list. (I’m assuming that “Aboriginal” = “Australian Aboriginal” there.)
Yes, there a population varieties among human beings, but “race” is not a useful concept.
There have been races of of people on earth but the human race is the only one left now.
There’s two more… I’m sure the list could get quite long. I was referring to Australian Aboriginal people. Are the Tasmanians physically distinct from them? My google foo is quite weak.
Yes, the Tasmanians were quite distinct, having been separated by Bass Strait for about 10,000 years. However, all the Tasmanian Aborigines now are of partly European descent – the last full Tasmanian Aborigine died in 1876.
Do you believe in biologically determined breeds?
Do you believe in Pit Bulls ?
1. Do you believe in biologically determined races? Yes.
2. Why/why not? When my Sociology professor explained to me that there was only one race in the human species, he exuded all the credibility of a small child shouting “La la la I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” Blacks and East Asians have consistent and observable physical differences from, say, me and my extended family, and all Blacks and Asians I’ve met seem to feel there’s such a thing as race.
3. If yes…
a) What are they (the number)? I don’t know. I believe there are over a thousand species of fish and insects, most of them yet undiscovered, but no credible individual can put an exact number on those either.
b) What are the parameters of the groups? Hard to say. The phrasing of the OP seems to discount sociological or cultural parameters and I don’t feel personally qualified to discuss biological ones. Fortunately, not even the OP gets to dictate the parameters of how people are allowed to disagree with him.
Try this: Race, like IQ, is dimly understood by the best of us and probably has a very different significance than we think. These qualifiers are not enough to say that it does not exist.
Lets assume you have some idea of what I’m talking about when I say black, Asian and white. Do you think there are biological differences between what I would call black, white and Asian?
Sure maybe those differences are the result of environmental differences in Africa, Europe and Africa. I don’t think we have subspecies like Morlocks and Eloi with vastly different characteristics.
Maybe I’m not clear on what “biologically determined” means but I am pretty sure that black parents tend to have black babies and white parents tend to have white babies. Mixed couples tend to have babies that reflect its mixed parentage.
Perhaps the “there is no such thing as race” argument is too nuanced for me but it seems like some people’s answer to the uncomfortable questions that racists raise is not to tackle them head on but to say “there is no such thing as race so everything you say is based on a lie”
No. As I said in my earlier post, race = subspecies, if we’re talking about biology. We use the subspecies term all the time with other animals. A subspecies is a isolated population, that is physically distinct, and that rarely interbreeds with other, isolated populations. Clinal populations (those that vary gradually over geography) oare not considered subspecies.
Start anywhere in the world, and you won’t find such isolated populations. If you walk from Beijing to Berlin, there is no place where you can draw the line and say: People look Asian on this side and European on the other side.
Race, as a social construct, does not follow biological definitions. It’s important to make a distinction between the two.
First of all, different dog breeds are not different subspecies of dogs.
But even if they were, do you believe there are populations of people who are managed by overlords and not allowed to breed with anyone outside that population, ever? And that there are strict records kept to make sure no other breeds are allowed to contribute genes that that population? If so, then you can call those “breeds” of humans.
This article in wikipedia has some useful information. Note, though, that the BSC is the more mainstream method of classification.
Emphasis added.
Of course. Just like races of humans. Simply so by definition.
Get real. Whether it is evolution by isolation in distinctly different environments or human induced design, both breeds and races imply morphological differences in populations that don’t rise to the level of subspecies.
The problem with that definition is that there is no objective way to determine how many of these human populations exist. You can always split populations into smaller and smaller subunits. If any biologist can set up any arbitrary sub-classification of humans, then it’s completely useless. Science is about reproducibility and predictability. Your definition has neither.
Dog breeds are easily defined, and there is an organization set up specifically to do that. That has no scientific analog to the human situation.
It is my understanding that the biologists do have difficulty identify species and sub species. Darwin came up with a number of finch species based on beak shape and size and now it is determined they weren’t even finches. And the latest news is that a new species of “finch” on the Galapagos has evoled in a few generations.
We’ve had countless threads where the inability to recognize a Pit Bull has been discussed.
There are difficulties in defining species, but they are for the most part handled by biologists. For what it’s worth, on the “species” designation has a controlling authority. For all other taxa, you have to look for consensus. But when you apply the commonly accepted definition of subspecies to humans, we don’t pass the test. We don’t have reproductively isolated populations, and we don’t have distinct, non-clinal morphological differences.
If you have a species that ranges throughout North America, and that is smaller and browner (for example) as you go further north and larger and blacker as you go further south, that is not a population that you can split into subspecies. That is a clinal morphological change.
But, if you have a population that is brown on one side of a mountain range and black on the other, with only occasional gene flow between the populations, then those are two populations that would be considered subspecies (assuming they are inter-fertile when they do mate).
“Pit bull” is not a breed recognized by the AKC. It is a colloquial term applied to several different breeds.
Breed standards among dogs are arbitrary as well. Just because the AKC sets a standard doesn’t mean that dogs outside of it are not of the same breed. For example, According to the AKC, Pugs may weigh between 14-18 lbs. Does that mean a runty one, or one that weighs 25 lbs isn’t a pug? of course not. We determine such standards by a combination of obvious physical traits. When the preponderance of traits conform to one population over all others then we assign the individual to the group. If they are evenly split or unable to be determined, we assign it the appellation of mixed, or some other more general category.
Humans are exactly the same. Amongst our population there are areas where a physical type, a combination of physical traits is concentrated and dominant in the population. As they spread out they encounter other populations, also expanding. Along the overlap there are people who are physical inter grades, and thus may resemble either population, both or neither. Just because we often mix things up doesn’t mean that there are not different types, nor that such types can be described with some sort of accuracy. I don’t think that you could endlessly keep paring things down either. At some point it becomes obvious that people evenly located between to disparate populations are not displaying a unique appearance, but rather a combination of either to varying degrees of closeness.