Damn, I wish some of the people who have accused me of making longish posts were here now!!!
This is the first thread I have responded to that I just could not read all the way through. The constant quoting would mean that I would have to read most of it twice or even thrice.
Seriously…Any one here own a purebred dog? Out of 101 Dalmatians there would be only a handful that were not deaf and/or blind, not to mention the many other consequences of selective breeding. Give it up!!! The potential harm far outweighs the potential good–as history quite clearly shows.
Forget the whole thing, and let future generations deal with it. After all, we can’t and they will have to! Duh.
You are absolutely right, E d’Mann. It is one of the dangers. The humankind ain’t bad as is, we can go on witout selective breeding, eugenics or not. I agree that this thread got lengthy, although penile enlargement caused more interest.
Actually, C., you are free to think that I am racist. The mods here do not allow personal insults, but it’s their policies, I have nothing to do with them.
…then quickly back off when Tom points out this is false If Tom said it’s false, I believe him. Do you prefer me to insist on my errors?
<<<Below, I post a few statements. You (and/or) C. say Yes or know.
What’s the point of this? >>>
Sorry for the typo: <kNOw>
The point is this: instead of arguing complex issues, you and me answer several simple questions. If the answers are similar, the discussion is over. If they are not, we’ll see…
But I knew that you’ll never answer them. Because if you say YES (except to #3), you’ll agree with me. Answering NO would be similar to saying that the Earth is flat.
You would not send me a hair, either. Although, if you sent me a “multiracial” hair, I’d had hard time identifying the race of the bearer. Which, by itself, would prove only that hair analysis has limitations. It would not prove or disprove any biological or sociological theories. But if you sent me four hairs, I’d responded with something like this: “Hair #1 belongs to a Caucasoid, hair #2 belongs to a Mongoloid, hair #3 belongs to a Negroid and hair #4 belongs to a person of mixed origin”. Note, that I would not be able to assign any cultural attributes to the bearers, such as the country of origin or the language they speak. But you will never agree to conduct such experiment, because for you it will make “no point”.
Our species is homogenous. That’s what the comparative genetic data tells us.. So, you answered one question. No, the data tell us the opposite: we have different physical features, different blood groups, different HLA phenotypes.
**This species is heterogenious, i.e.,groups of individuals having different biological markers, such as HLA phenotypes and different features, such as eye color, hair structure, exist…
I’m not going to play this round and round the bush game, the point was dealt with already. You either did not understand the critique or refuse to. ** —I do not understand.
Why would your idea be interesting? Because I got the impression that you’d thought that the apparent difficulties encountered with classifying Australian Aborigines deny the existence of biological races.
**Why not read the data I posted in the other thread instead of playing these little games? ** Because my reading the data will not help us. For instance, the data indicate that people have different phenotypes. Meaning that we are heterogeneous. But you deny it. Despite the fact that we all look different. Our species is homogenous.
I think that before we continue on race discussion, we have to agree on the rules. I thought that we use formal logic rules on this board, e.g., if A>B and B>C, then A>C, etc. These formal logic rules are not the only ones known. Different rules are known. For instance, “dialectical materialism”. According to it, an American military base in Cuba would be an evidence of “imperialist colonization”, while USSR military base in Poland (equidistant) would be an evidence of “fraternal cooperation”. I can understand and play by the former set, but not by the latter. Being feebleminded, I become very confused when the rules change in the middle of the game.
This species is heterogeneous, i.e., groups of individuals having different biological markers, such as HLA phenotypes and different features, such as eye color, hair structure, exist…Whoops!
Whoops: Formal logic, right? Then why set up a false either-or question that can be misconstrued depending on the definitions given to multiple terms in each statement?
My restatement of points 3 and 4:
This species expresses homogeneity at the level of the individual…NO
This species is heterogeneous, i.e., groups of individuals having different biological markers, such as unique HLA phenotypes and different unique features, such as eye color, hair structure, exist…NO
With one or two minor exceptions, no “marker” is unique to a single group and most markers can be found in multiple groups: eye color, darkness or lightness of skin, curly or straight hair, and epicanthic folds are found to some degree among every major group on earth. In fact, blonde hair is the only trait I can think of that does not occur in every group (although blue eyes only survive to adulthood in one group). No HLA type is unique to any group although some groups have slightly higher percentages of some test values.
That people who live near each other tend to have similar appearances I will agree. However, the fact that specific traits that each group displays are found in most other groups argues against any division based on those characteristics.
Biological markers are randomly distributed; certain markers may be more prevalent in some populations …YES
No single marker is unique for any given group …YES (with the minor exceptions noted above).
First, stop your self serving whinging. It’s a most unattractive feature, especially when your assertions are untrue. I compared your method and style of argument not you to the method and style of racists I’ve encountered in the past. Surely not a compliment, but it is a fact. I could add it also ressembles that of the creation ‘scientists’. Does this mean I am calling you either a creation ‘scientist’ or racist. No, I’m pointing out that your argumentation stinks.
Why not take a hint, neither of us will stand for distortions and mere empty assertions. You need to put a bit more effort in, and actually engage what Tom and I say, rather than constructing straw man arguments.
Oh heaven forbid dealing with complexity… Your statement of the questions was flawed to begin with, all you are trying to do is avoid dealing with real data.
Bullshit. You’ve presented a flawed conception, as Tom has already pointed out. Essentially, you’re simply squirming around vainly trying to restate a failed argument. I have already dealt with the issue but for some reason I will try again below.
Both Tom and I have already dealt with the gross logical errors underlying your assertions in this regard. Your continued lack of response to our critiques is duly noted. Please spare me your strawmen (e.g. cultural affiliation, as if that was ever the subject.)
Do you think by restating the same position which Tom and I have already rebutted time and time again that we will suffer some kind of memory lapse or sudden failure of reason and just agree with you?
But to answer why you are still wrong (in fact wrong in the same way) first, we need to understand that homogeniety is relative: are we all exact clones? (100% homogenous). No, clearly not. No mammal is. Ergo what does homogenous mean in this context? What is the context?
(Hint: read the f***ing papers cited.) The data indicates that we are among the most genetically homogenous mammalian species known. 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.
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.
Got that? Have I been less than clear?
That is so glaringly clear that I might almost vomit.
I don’t even know how to respond to this. Perhaps repeatedly slamming my forehead against the desk? Any suggestions? Tom, you have the patience of a saint, can you bring yourself to respond to this gem?
Oh heaven forbid you might actually try to deal with actual data. (Aside: Mods the temptation to turn this into a Pit thread grows with each P message. Things like this… Although come to think of it, given what I have seen so far, the above statement is probably literally true.)
Hint: when debating a point in a forum such as this one has to deal with the data. Sticking your figurative fingers in your ear and simply asserting you know it all already makes you look like an idiot.
Phenotypes… Must supress the urge to go shoot myself. Yes, there are different phenotypes. They are not terribly useful, as Tom and I have clearly argued already, in organizing populations on a putative biological basis. Rather like organizing fruit based on color. Doesn’t tell you much about their biology per se. Not utterly useless of course, as phenotypes tell you about certain kinds of environmental pressures or evolutionary environments, but not useful for trying to create categories implying underlying genetic commonalities.
Listen a f’ing tabby cat looks different than other kinds of kitties. Does that make it a particularly good category of analysis in and of itself. Fuck no.
You have to define and understand the terms you are using before moving ahead. Are we clones no, are we homogenous as compared with other mammals, yes. Relative positions.
You, pretend to lecture us on formal logic? This is just as rich as your fake, self serving cry we ignored your non-existant data (apparently mistaking assertion for data).
No you were confused well before the game, and have mistaken refutation for change in the rules.
By the way, your sole two substantive cites require either med school or something or other medical id to log in. I’m afraid that I can’t respond to them.
Of course, since you have yet to deal with the cites I provided in the other thread (I probably should repost them come to think of it) I am not inclined to go much further, so perhaps I will repeat here some of the highlights of what I said in the other race thread. I sincerely apologize for the repetition but a certain participant here seems to be rather lazy:
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. . . .” What I and Tom have said all along, in other words…
There are two levels of variability to consider. Intra and inter-group (within and between group) variations in the genome. C-S’ considers an analysis of that part of our genome which can be measured by various markers (of allele
variation) of the 6% to 15% of our variability –not our entire genome note, of our *variability, which is a vanishingly small 1% or so-- which varies by region or group. The difference in the estimates depends on the markers used. Templeton, using the “classical” blood markers gets around 15%, others get around 6% using more refined methods.
I.E. our variation by things which one might call racial is tiny! Say, at maximum 15% of approximately 1%. (Some refs:
re much lower degree of mtDNA variability among modern humans see M. Ruvolo et al. [1993] Molecular Biology and Evolution 10: 1115-1135; re much less Heterozygosity of modern humans than in other primates see D. N. Janczewski et al., [1990] Journal of Heredity 81: 375-387
re Human races not having unique set of shared derived characters characterizing any human ‘race’ see P. A. Morin et al. [1994] Science 265: 1193-1201;
re max mtDNA maximum for humans (1.1%) for other primates, around 3% see R. L. Cann et al. [1987] Nature 325: 31-36. Also Research by Maryellen Ruvolo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 13/9/66. which examined mtDNA estimated mutation rate of 0.8% per million years. It estimated gorillas separated from chimps and humans cica 8-10 MYA; humans and chimps circa 6 MYA. Found a very large difference between mtDNA of Gorilla gorilla gorilla (W Africa lowland) and E. Africa species G. g. graueri and G. g. beringei indicating a split about 3 MYA and almost making them separate species. Most interesting was how little variation there was in human mtDNA. “Her findings support 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.”)
As Templeton says in connection with his paper, “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective,” (American Anthropologist, Fall 1998) “The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species. In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There’s lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it’s basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor.”
Added bonus: Mark Seielstad, Endashaw Bekele, Muntaser Ibrahim, Amadou Touré, and Mamadou Traoré "A View of Modern Human Origins from Y Chromosome Microsatellite Variation " Vol. 9, Issue 6, 558-567, June 1999
Online at: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/6/558
Summarizes many of the issues in population genetics in its introduction, although it really deals with paleoanthropological issues, but contains some nicely stated critiques of how to approach markers and their meaning.
Similar issues are discussed in:
Francis S. Collins,1 Lisa D. Brooks,1,3 and Aravinda Chakravarti2 “A DNA Polymorphism Discovery Resource for Research on Human Genetic Variation”
Online at: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/12/1229
(mostly the intro, although the paleo stuff is fun and interesting.)
And while I’m at it, why not read this paper?
Mark Stoneking, Jennifer J. Fontius, Stephanie L. Clifford, Himla Soodyall, Santosh S. Arcot, Nilmani Saha, Trefor Jenkins Mohammad A. Tahir, Prescott L. Deininger, and Mark A. Batzer: “LETTERS: Alu Insertion Polymorphisms and Human Evolution: Evidence for a Larger Population Size in Africa”
Vol. 7, Issue 11, 1061-1071, November 1997
Online at: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/7/11/1061
Since it shows how population issues are addressed in context, not 100% relevant but what the heck I thought it was an interesting article and since I’m in a sharing mood.
Also Li Jin, Peter A. Underhill, Vishal Doctor, Ronald W. Davis, Peidong Shen, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Peter J. Oefner
“Distribution of haplotypes from a chromosome 21 region distinguishes multiple prehistoric human migrations” Vol. 96, Issue 7, 3796-3800, March 30, 1999
is kinda fun.
This species originated from one predecessor…yes…YES
This species is homogeneous…no…Whoops!
This species is heterogeneous, i.e., groups of individuals having different biological markers, such as HLA phenotypes and different features, such as eye color, hair structure, exist……yes……Whoops!
Whoops: Formal logic, right? Then why set up a false either-or question that can be misconstrued depending on the definitions given to multiple terms in each statement?
Fair. See below.
My restatement of points 3 and 4:
3) This species expresses homogeneity at the level of the individual.no…NO
4) This species is heterogeneous, i.e., groups of individuals having different biological markers, such as unique HLA phenotypes and different unique features, such as eye color, hair structure, existyes…NO
You got me on “formal logic”, OK. This is exactly why these two mutually exclusive questions cannot be answered identically. If 3) is NO, 4) automatically is yes. No exceptions. Like pregnancy.
<<With one or two minor exceptions, no “marker” is unique to a single group
correct
No HLA type is unique to any group
correct
<< although some groups have slightly higher percentages of some test values.
If there were only one “race” on Earth, i.e., if all people had one skin color, one eye color,etc., separate groups of people would be still easily distinguishable. Some groups have higher frequency of blood type A(II), some groups have higher frequency of HLA-Bw22, etc. Most of these markers are independently inherited. So, if one group has high frequency of markers A,B,C,D,and E, and an indibidual J. Doe has markers A, B, C, D and Y, he very likely belongs to that group. Not absolutely, but, say, with 98% probability. If many markers are chosen, the probability increases, sharply. Biological markers are far better suited for population studies than external features like skin and eye color. These markers are binary, i.e., they are either present or not. The laws of inheritance are well known and precise. Therefore, “partial” and “mixed” patterns do not exist. In contrast, traits such as skin color or hair structure are poorly defined and continuous.
I hope these basic postulates are well known to you. To me they are as obvious as 2+2=4. That’s why I do not suply customary references. Indeed, sometimes it’s difficult. And, I’m sure, you’d be offended. Imagine something like “The Earth is round,” see American Astronomer, 1984, 19:34-37.
Biological markers are randomly distributed; certain markers may be more prevalent in some populations ………yes…YES
No single marker is unique for any given group…yes …YES (with the minor exceptions noted above).
So, it looks that we agree on most points. One clarification on 4): I used “phenotype” rather loosely. I do not want any confusion here, so I quote the definition I found: “1. The entire physical, biochemical and physiological makeup of an individual as determined both genetically and environmentally, as opposed to genotype. Also, any type or any group of such traits. 2. An individual or group of individuals exhibiting a certain phenotype”. I promise to stick with this definition. Not because I like it, but because we have to use words which mean same things.
If you feel so, you may clarify my viewpoints by asking me “one line” questions. Or whatever.
One more thing, about your example of a decomposing body in the Bronx. His neighbors might have thought of him as “Black”. As a chief of police, I’d check missing person records on all dark skinned curley haired people in my jurisdiction, African Americans, Jamaican, Fijians, etc. I’d skipped dark skinned straight haired people and curly haired light skinned people. As opposed to his neighbors, I’d order a series of blood and tissue tests to determine his HLA types and other markers and would try to more precisely identify him. After receiving the report saing that the deceased body is “most likely” to be of mixed race type prevalent in American Samoa, I’d focus my search on Samoan community, keeping in mind other possibilities. To my knowledge, police departments do not keep such kind of records. I see nothing racist in such system, as opposed to government records, but this topic belongs to a different thread.
<<Got that? Have I been less than clear? –C. Yes.
<<By the way, your sole two substantive cites require either med school or something or other medical id to log in. I’m afraid that I can’t respond to them.>> Sorry, I got there with no problems.
Peace,
I guess my question would be, what would you consider “mixed race”? Take my family, for example. My father’s ancestors were probably originally from the highlands of Iran, then headed west, meeting and, I suppose, having sex with a lot of the people they ran into along the way, till they finally got to England and Ireland. There they settled, till the decendants of other groups of tribes also from the Persian highlands (the Romans, the Vikings, the Saxons, and finally the French), who had all gone through these moves themselves.
My mom is descended from a "wandering Aramean", who, deciding he didn't like the Euphrates Valley, headed west. His decendents, in all likelyhood met and married Egyptians, Canaanites, Phonecians, Ethiopians, Babylonians, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, and Romans, till a more recent ancestor decided to head to Southern Germany. Now, keeping in mind that all of the people my ancestors met who also became my ancestors, had ancestors who did the same thing, and that there appear to be two constants to human behavior:
Captain,
I’m flattered: Somebody is interested in my opinion. In “classic” terms, your “race” is Caucasoid. Since Persia/Iran is not far from regions populated by Mongoloids, and, as you said, you ancestors were a horny bunch, I would not be surprised if some admixture of Mongoloid “blood” is present in you.
Seriously speaking, and more within this thread, even if you spend several thousand dollars and get your complete phenotype, it wouldn’t help much. There are certain markers prevalent in Mongoloids. Let’s say, many of then are present in your cells. But these markers are not unique to Mongoloids, none of them have letter “m”. You might have inherited these markers from your other ancestors, no matter how rare they are in them. The statistical odds of this are slimmer, but this origin cannot be absolutely excluded.
I think it is very natural and human to be curious of our ancestors, both biologically and culturally. (One of the things which separates us from animals). Some of us are very proud of their “ancient” roots, some do not give a hoot. I have no judgement on that. My only concerrn is that we always try to understand each other and do not hate each other because we are all different, racially culturally,or “attitudeally”.
NEW YORK, Nov 10 (Reuters Health) - Most European men living today are likely to have descended from just one of 10 men, according to results of a new DNA study…
{Edited for copyright infringement. Don’t post the full text of copyrighted articles; post a link and minor excerpts only. --Gaudere}
SOURCE: Science 2000;290:1155-1159.
I thought that some SDopers might be interested in this.
Many years ago I’ve read that we all might have descended from a single African woman. Could it be that she was gang-raped by 10 men?
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-13-2000 at 02:33 PM]
Peace,
Well, I might also have “Negroid blood” in me, as Ethiopia and Egypt border populations that are classified as such, but the entire scenario I presented you sort of illustrates in my mind what’s so problematic about the concept of “race” Are my Indo-European ancestors the same “race” as the people they met when they swept into Europe, or are they of different races? There’s no question that the Basques, for example, have different genetic markers than Indo-Europeans. You seem to reference three races, but some anthropologists say there are 5, or 7. Some have even claimed there were 20. As you said, there’s no marker unique to Mongoloids, or, I believe, to any other race. People have just moved around too much, had casual sex, and passed their genetic information on to all four corners of the world. That just seems to me to be the problem with “race”
I wholehartedly agree, Captain. I do not insist on “three” races, nor do I think it’s terribly importatnt, 3…4…5…or whatever. I used “3” becase these three are major, populationwise, have “name-recognition”, are rather distinct. So, I thought at least their existense would be non-controvercial. Are Oceania inhabitants constitute separate race? Are Aboredines included or is it a separate race? Or can it be called subrace? Sounds almost as “sub-humans”. And, believe you or not, some peole are offended, if called “subgroup” or a “branch” or, in general, anything else than “major”. But scientists like and must classify. It allows for better understanding and even for better storage: dictionaries are places where words are stored in order because words there are alphabetically classified, and those starting with "a’ are listed first. As I mentioned, external traits are vague and continuous. Take skin color. Can we use it as racial discriminator? (not politicaly, of course; anyone here having trouble, look up “discrimination” in the dictionary).
Actually, there is only one skin color with varios saturation of melanin, from dark brown to light brow/olive to “egg shell” (I do not know what to call it, it’s not “white” as this screen is). It’s easy with blood groups: if the mother’s is A and the father’s B, the child may be only A, or B, or AB, i.e., have both A and B. If the mother is “white” and the father is blacx, the child can be - you know, any hue in between. And change with age.
But biological markers were not known until very recently. Historically, external traits were used to classify people. Personally, I do not think that “belonging” to any race is important. Your own example shows how difficult it may be. Yet, some people think that some races are “superior” and cling to them. The superficial superiority is usually determined by prolong environmetal factors. Tom gave us a good example - sicle-cell gene and malaria. Yes, sicle-cell gene offers some protection against malaria. In parts of Nigeria, 30% of population carry it. There it’s “superior”. Yet it’s absolutely worthless (actually, harmful) where I live (there is no malaria here). Melanin makes the skin of “white” Mediterranians darker and somewhat protects them from skin melanoma, making them “superior”. People in Scandinavia have less melanin, but they do not need much. So, I do not think that being “pure-racial” or “multi-racial” is really that important.
Sorry, about your “Indo-Europen” ancestors. Europe and Western Asia is populated by Caucasoids, Eastern Asia - by Mongoloids. How far east did your ancestors amorousely ventured? And how enthusiastic were the north african relatives? Ask you grandma, she would know :-).
So, what “race” was my father, whose ancestors as far back as anyone could reckon lived in what is now Germany and who was so “German” looking, that when he went to Europe on business, he had to keep asking people to speak English to him, as he could only quote a few German phrases–yet he clearly had epicanthic folds in his eyelids?
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?
(BTW, is there any on-line site that will back up the claim that a single hair can be successfully identified as belonging to a central African, an aboriginal Australian, or a Micronesian? I have been searching and the only sites I have found that support the concept of race fall back on cultural markers. Every single one of the forensic sites I have found have used multiple traits to identify the most likely population in a given region. Not one has shone how they would correctly identify an actual anomaly.)
One more try to introduce reason into this tar baby of a thread.
Offensive and stupid speculation. Gang rape is not funny, nor are your speculations, such as they are. You clearly, although this is no surprise, don’t understand what’s going on here. The “Eve” or these “Adams” are not literal, but rather artefacts of descent useful for elucidating our population history.
The DNA trees do not trace back to a single individual or small group such as these Adams because there were literally just one Eve or these ten Adams (which of course are seperated by tens of thousands of years) but rather because the lineages of all the others have gone extinct.
You can visualize the process by thinking of restricted, isolate population with just 10 surnames (lineages). In each generation, some men will have no children or only daughters and their surnames will disappear until only one is left; for the Y chromosome linked and mitochondrial DNA lnked lineages, there will be precisely the same pattern.
Now, as for your other ** fact free assertions ** I was going to construct a detialed response but then I realized I’d be wasting my time since you simply ignore actual data and make up your own assertions without paying the slightest attention to rebuttals.
So, I shall just make a few notes.
You have made the positive assumption that the distribution of the above markers map in similar percentages onto the classic “races” – perhaps I have missed the data which indicates this? I have failed to find any literature wich notes such correlations across multiple markers, rather the opposite. Oh yeah, I forgot, you don’t need real data, you already “know”, isn’t that right?
Again you are making a positive assumption wihtout having provided a single shred of f’ing evidence. Tom and I have asked for this repeatedly, you’ve provided a few links which either did not check out or which are not publically accessible.
What do you mean, by individual, or course. By population, that is pure bunk. Once again you’re either logically impaired and mixing levels of analysis or you’re trying to pull a fast one.
Duuuuuuh. What Tom and I have said since the start.
Ah, I see, trying to cover your backtracking by shifting the boundaries of your argument. I note for the record that a review of the thread clearly shows that this was not your argument previously. I also note that Tom and I have demanded not references for what we have argued (indeed, I have provided substantive references) but rather the references demanded have been for support of your assertion that such traits can reliably be used to define something called races.
Straw man argument, Peace once more tries to detract from the factlessness of his argument and from the fact he has yet to substantively reply to Tom and my critiques. You’ve continously made this sort of statement and I have begun to find it a bit insulting to our basic intelligence.
Well, since you snipped away the context of the question, which was the meaning of homogeniety and heterogeniety in the context of human populations, its hard to tell what you did not understand. Perhaps you can explain what was unclear about the following:
We need to understand that homogeniety is relative: are we all exact clones? (100% homogenous). No, clearly not. No mammal is. Ergo what does homogenous mean in this context?
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.
Now, what part of this don’t you understand – or perhaps better don’t you want to understand.
Somehow I doubt that given the results from the non-support of your other “cites”.
Frankly Captain, I’m thinking this …person… is a troll. Given the dishonesty with which he approaches the argument. Europe is for caucasoids, Asia is for mongoloids but where does one start and the other stop? Of course there is no such line…
Well, my grandmother did tour Europe, but I don’t think she was amorous when she was there. In terms of the “Europe and West Asia-Caucusoid/East Asia-Mongoloid”, that doesn’t hold up. The Mongolians attacked as far west as Poland and Hungary, and held onto Russia, Baghdad, and Persia for a while. The Ainu of Japan and Siberia aren’t Mongoloid, nor are the Indians, or the Malay or many of the people of Indonesia.
In terms of my ancestors being “Indo-European”, some were, but a lot, as I stated in my post, didn’t speak Indo-European languages, speaking instead Hamito-Semitic languages.
How “enthusiastic” were the North African relatives? By that, I take it you mean (and please correct me if I’m wrong), what are the chances that one of my ancestors would have contact with someone you’d classify as “Negroid”? Lets think about this. We know that there were contacts between Egypt and Nubia from the beginning, the Nubians sometimes a vassal state of Egypt, and sometimes a rival power. Other contacts between North Africa/the Middle East and subsaharan Africa include: Phonecians who set up bases and traded in West Africa, Arabs who traded for ivory and slaves with East Africa, sometimes as far south as Zimbabwe, and the employment of mercenaries by Carthage. It just becomes silly to talk about being “pure race”, because such a beast doesn’t exist in this world.
<<Well, my grandmother did tour Europe, but I don’t think she was amorous when she was there.>> Whatever.
<< The Mongolians attacked as far west as Poland and Hungary, and held onto Russia, Baghdad, and Persia for a while. >> The mongoloids lived there for millennia, they “attacked “ for brief periods in 12-14 centuries. Since you did not specify which period in history you were interested in, I just mentioned the fact.
<<The Ainu of Japan and Siberia>> There are no Ainu in Siberia.<< aren’t Mongoloid, nor are the Indians, or the Malay or many of the people of Indonesia. >>Correct. It demostraits that things ain’t simple, the fact the Central Asia is populated by Mongoloids is still true.
<<In terms of my ancestors being “Indo-European”, some were, but a lot, as I stated in my post, didn’t speak Indo-European languages, speaking instead Hamito-Semitic languages.>> Biology has nothing to do with languages.
<<How “enthusiastic” were the North African relatives? By that, I take it you mean (and please correct me if I’m wrong), what are the chances that one of my ancestors would have contact with someone you’d classify as “Negroid”?>> I can’t estimate the chances. Make an educated guess.
<<So, what “race” was my father, whose ancestors as far back as anyone could reckon lived in what is now Germany and who was so “German” looking, that when he went to Europe on business, he had to keep asking people to speak English to him, as he could only quote a few German phrases–yet he clearly had epicanthic folds in his eyelids? >> I know that “epicanthic fold” is a feature of Mongoloid race, not Caucasoid Germans. Again, speaking any language does not confer race.
<<I’m just not sure why this insistence that there are biological races.>> I thought, we agreed on that. Why this insistence that there are *cultural]/I] races? If both parents have no A/B genes, their child will not have them either. It will place the whole family in the same donor group or risk group. They were born and die racially related. The fact that both parents do not speak English or do not go to Mosque has nothing to do with the child.
< < 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.>> Right premises, wrong conclusion. “Race” could be a “race” without clear markers. True, there are no * single * “clear marker”, but each race can be characterized by “constellation” of markers. In general, even a simple category does not have to have “clear markers”. E.g., pornography does not have “clear markers”, yet most people can easily tell the difference between pornograohy and art. Female and male faces have no “clear markers”, yet in most cases you have no trouble. Mongoloid and Negroid faces have no “clear markers”, yet in most cases we can distinguish between them. In all three examples, occasional mistakes are possible. It does not cancel the basic concept, though.
<<Culturally, we can identify a few general populations of people. >> I do not think so, but I feel comfortable in biology, less so in culture.
<<Some of them have suffered political and economic discrimination because of their appearance.>> Wrong. They had or had not malaria and melanomas because of their appearance. They suffered because racists equated their appearance with cultural attributes. That what I am against. Racial attributes have nothing to do with cultural attributes. The former are permanent and inherited. The latter are changeable and aquired.
<< 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.>> Wrong. E.g., Tay-Sachs disease is not known in Blacks (Negroids), it’s even not known in all Caucasoids.
<<Biologically, what’s the point?>> Irrelevant question. Biology has no “points”. What’s the point of the Moon rotating around the Earth? We could do without the Moon.
<<(BTW, is there any on-line site that will back up the claim that a single hair can be successfully identified as belonging to a central African, an aboriginal Australian, or a Micronesian??>> Probably not. If I find anything, I’ll post it. You understand, that we have no problem with blond vs. dark hair. Most Central African hair would have alternaiting cross-section. Some Aboriginal Astralian and some Micronesian hair will and some will not. There are other characteristics, such as melanin content, “roundness” vs. “ellipsoidness”, etc. In general, two objects can be closely related or can be far apart. Police are “lucky” that no two fingerpatterns in the world are identical. Hair patterns are quite distinguishable, but not unique. By itself, it does not prove or disprove any theory.
It appears Peace it actively ignoring me. I wonder why that is? All the better, but let me point out some more distortions.
Well, who are the mongoliods and where do mongoloids start and caucasoids end? What particular specific constellation of traits makes a mongoloid? Looking like the stereotypical chinese? Can everyone see where this is going. Ever made a business trip to Kazakhstan? What does one do with blue eyed blond haired yet strangely “chinese” looking folks? Etc.
BTW, while I believe you are correct, Peace, in stating there are no Ainu in Siberia, it rather dodges the question of what to do with those that exist since our genetic data indicates their descent is from Asiatic sources.
Central Asia is populated by Mongoloids… What precisely is the definition of mongoloid… Ah, you use it like porn, you know it when you see it.
Peace, for once, has made an important point. Language families do not mean genetic families. We find historical record of major language usage shifts without major population shifts.
Ah but is not blue eyes and blond hair a caucasoid feature, my my my what do we do with this.
Hmm, could it be because the subjectivity of the definition is rooted in particular cultural emphases on a constellation of physical features? Your focus on the individual in your example does nothing to elucidate how you expect your “race” entity to work or what biological use it is.
This from the fellow who has yet to produce one iota of data nor explain the utility of his concept?
You assert this continually yet seem unable to be able to define what they are. What constellation is it you want to work with? We know the phenotype is not workable (although you scuttle back to that above, consistency does not seem to be your strong point), so you want to work with what?
Ah ** the truth be out**! Race is like pornography: you know it when you see it, but its not susceptible to a objective, scientific definition! Well, duh, that’s what Tom and Captain and I have said since the get go. In other words, as Tom has said, its a cultural description of a particular constellation of ascribed traits.
Bwahahahahaha. You, comfortable in biology? Oh please.
??? Oh you mean you’re returning to phenotype definitions of race: dark skin and malarial resistance are now your race markers? Okay, that means south Indians, south Mediterraneans among others are part of one race with rainy zone sub-Saharan Africans! Okay. Fine.
Quite right for once.
Tay-sachs is a genetic disorder --it is not a caucasian disease but rather it crops up in certain central European Jewish populations due to close marriage. I am unaware whether the recessive trait is present or not in other populations, however rare. Do you have affirmative information? In any case, there are no racial diseases, assuming we are taking race to be the stereotypical big three.
Surely you do not believe this is a response to the question. I find it hard to believe that you actually misunderstood the question – what is the point to making categories such as race which have no explanatory value whatsoever in terms of biological character. This can only be characterized as an assine reply.
The Bone Detectives : How Forensic Anthropologists Solve Crimes and Uncover Mysteries of the Dead; Donna M. Jackson, et al; Hardcover; $15.26
This is one of thousands sorces for hair analysis; you can find almost anything on everything we talked about here: marker frequencies in different populations, epicanthal folds, etc., on the Net and/or on paper. I posted the above only because it poped up first when I typed “hair analysis” in the URL bar. I wanted to post more, but then realized that it would be too much (mods wouldn’t allow it) and that anyone can do that. After all, I do not push any theories of mine; the info confirming it is widely available. One has to have an open mind when learning new facts; I know it too well. E.g., my wife is convinced that it rains a lot where we live. My or anyone else’s arguments do not convince her. I showed her world maps of precipitation, showing that we are about average for our latitude. Her response: “they are incorrect, etc. I know it’s a rainy here”. Biology is easy compared to psychopogy…
As what is probably my final post to this thread, I would note that people engaging in forensic investigations can (as I have indicated earlier) rely on our cultural perceptions of race. Identifying a corpse or less than complete human remains according to generally recognized cultural perceptions works. The forensic pathologist must use his/her skills to create a portrait of the person who once lived so that that portrait will be recognizable to police or the public who are trying to identify the potential victim of a possible crime. It does not matter if they mistakenly place an aboriginal Australian or a Khoisan into the category “black” because people who are looking for the deceased will recognize “black” as a possible description of the person they are missing.
This hardly supports a biological identification of “race” and I have been unable to find any other support for the concept in the context of biology. In fact, every single site I have found that describes “markers” for “race” falls into the category of forensic pathology. The single possible exception is the Utah site that was testing for organ donors and I have already noted two problems I find with their conclusions: they are testing in the limited domain of the United States where the number of exceptions to the expected (culturally determined) races will be vanishingly small to begin with, and they blatantly stated that they were not going to do any investigation due to their a priori assumptions about both race and their data.
The following exchanges I did find troubling:
This is troubling because you have not shown yourself to be this obtuse and you seem to be deliberately missing the point. In case I have overestimated the clarity of my original scenario, I will elaborate on it:
My father grew up blonde and blue-eyed but with a distinctive epicanthic fold. (See pictures of Roy Rogers for a much milder version of that feature among Causasoid eyelids.) On business trips to Europe, to Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and France, he was persistently addressed in German because he appeared classically German, despite his “asian” or “Mongoloid” eyes. (To the point that one Swiss hotelier, after being corrected that Dad was not German for the third time, responded, “Put you loook Cherman!”) The issue was never language; the issue was that numerous Europeans assumed that my Dad was German (and addressed him in that language) despite at least one “racial” feature that indicated that he was not.
Come now! The fact that the Earth has a satellite of a certain mass at a certain distance from the Earth is expressed in a great many astronomic and mathematical expressions and has a direct bearing on such “minor” phenomena as tides.
The reason for asking for a “point” to an avowed assertion that race is biological is that there is no evidence that race is biological, so “Why insist upon it?”. The only “evidence” that has been presented for biological “race” has come from woefully inadequate testimony (the Utah organ matchers) or from anthropological testimony (forensic pathology). Lacking strong testimony from a biological perspective, why not accept the cultural origins of “race” and why insist on a biological basis for race? Citing the existence of the moon as not needing a “point” is to simply avoid the question.
<<<…I would note that people engaging in forensic investigations can (as I have indicated earlier) rely on our cultural perceptions of race. Identifying a corpse or less than complete human remains according to generally recognized *cultural *perceptions works.
It works because it ain’t cultural. Forensic pathologists do not ask the body which language it spoke or what church it went. In the old days, it would be “dark skinned male of appx. 30 years of age, with kinky hair, full lips, etc.” Nowadays, they would send samples and receive back the report reading: “ HLE-Bw52(+), ant.B(+). Le(+). etc. According to the observed frequencies, this body has the following chances to belong to one of the following groups, see the tables below…” The detectives on the case could look into the missing persons in the white community, if the body appearered “white”, or into Asian community if "mondoloid” features were identified, etc., or elsewhere, based on cultural details of a particilar case. It’s not detectives “perception”, it’s the objective, unchangeble criteria. Your “percertion” of a person gender might differ depending on the person’s cosmetic makeup. Your “perception” of person’s nationality might depend on the language used by her/im. Your “perception” is subjective and will differ from day to day. Your “perception” of a body gender will depend on its clothes. Biological sex will be determined by chromosomal analysis or Barr bodies, even in transvestites/transsexuals.
<<I have been unable to find any other support for the concept in the context of biology. In fact, every single site I have found that describes “markers” for “race” falls into the category of forensic pathology. >> Forensic pathology is a branch of pathology, i.e. it is biology. “Forensic” describes its cultural attribute, i.e. addmission in courts.
Your father is a good example of what I (and you) have been saying all along: no single trait can place a person reliably in any race. But a constellation of them, plus tissue markers, can, but only with a certain probability. There is always a chance that a person, having 10 markers prevalent in race A, actually belongs to race B. There are very few people like him in race B, but they exist. This concept does not make races “percertual” or meaningless. It makes them unusual category for a chemist (or a physicist) used to deal with discreet characteristics, like: “If a compound lacks H, it can’t be a hydrocarbon”. If antigen XYZ is present in 98% of Caucasoids and somebody lacks it, it would not exlude her, by itself.
<<me now! The fact that the Earth has a satellite of a certain mass at a certain distance from the Earth is expressed in a great many astronomic and mathematical expressions and has a direct bearing on such “minor” phenomena as tides.>> I know about the Moon and the tides, and that they are linked. It still does not mean that the Moon is here “on purpose”. It just happened to be here, as biological markers are. No particular purpose.
<<< only “evidence” that has been presented for biological “race” has come from woefully inadequate testimony (the Utah organ matchers) or from anthropological testimony (forensic pathology). >>> They, or I, do not have to testify that “ ‘race’ is biological”. We agreed here that ‘race’ has only biological, no cultural markers. To me, it means that ‘race’ is biological. Language, on the other hand, has no biological markers. Only cultural. Therefore, it’s cultural.
<<<…why not accept the cultural origins of “race” and why insist on a biological basis for race?>> I showed to you that ‘race’ has biologic characteristics. Show to me that ‘race’ has any cultural characteristics, e.g., that it can be acquired, forgotten, etc. and I gladly accept it.
Racist took biological characteristics of race and turned them into cultural ones. E.g., they said that “black” people are stupid and cannot study becase they are “black and stupid”. You see the logical leap? When “white” racist first encountered “black” people, they did not know anything about them, including their mental proclivities. Instead of trying to learn about them, they blocked their access to education. It only perpetuated the myth about “black’s stupidity”. Arguing why it was done many years ago, whether out of “whites” own stupidity or out of “evil” will bring no useful results now. Even if found guilty (by contemporary standards), they cannot be punished. We have to stop making cultural conclisions based on biological characteristics. Repeating that “race is cultural” serves only one purpose.
<<Citing the existence of the moon as not needing a “point” is to simply avoid the question.>>
I never tried “to avoid the question”. I was simply desperate. Cultural attributes may have “a point”. Biological (or astronomical) do not. They are simply here. No “whys”.