I’m going to barge in from a clustering perspective. If we divide people by characteristics controlled by one or a few genes, we can get a good definition - thinks like sex, blood type, eye color. (And I realize there are exceptions even for these.) But race is based on a ton of genetic characteristics - skin color, shape of the lips, characteristics of the eyes, etc., etc. Even those who really cared about these distinctions had trouble making them, so you have stuff like drop of blood rules, or percentage of parentage of one race or another making someone of that race, which is clearly absurd. If you tried to cluster a population by “race” with the full genome of all members, I suspect you’d have pretty small distinct islands when you use any given trait or set of traits to cluster on.
I can’t get to the texts of either of these. could you give a summary? I’d like to see which microsatellite markers are so effective at determining race. I’m very curious about how Obama would fall out in this analysis.
Ah, Lewontin’s fallacy. That’s been rather thoroughly debunked if you care to do some reading. I’m on the BB, so no links.
The former is just a recent review of the race-IQ literature that focuses on the state of the debate.
Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence
Earl Hunt and Jerry Carlson
Perspective on Psychological Science
The abstract for the latter:
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Feb;76(2):268-75. Epub 2004 Dec 29.
Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies.
Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, Kardia SL, Zhu X, Brown A, Pankow JS, Province MA, Hunt SC, Boerwinkle E, Schork NJ, Risch NJ.
You may be able to pull up the fulltext from another site. And, I’d imagine that Obama would be somewhat intermediate between the African American and white clusters. The sample in this study wasn’t random, so it’s hard to know how common multiracial ancestry was in their data.
Lewontin hasn’t been “debunked,” just challenged as an objection to “race” being a useful biological classification for human beings… Those objections do not establish that such classifications or suspeciations actually exist, however. They do not. There is no biological definition for “race.” Plain and simple. If you disagree, cite it.
Tell me what race Barack Obama is while you’re at it.
And we’re back to where we started, Dio. A person looking at genetic features of people absolutely can lump those people into groups that they can call “races” based on those genetic features.
Stated abnother way, “race” does exist as a concept that can be used to assign people to categories based on genetic features.
Do you disagree with that?
Dio, the fact that a category can have fuzzy edges or that a person can have features common to more than one category does not mean that categorizing is a useless exercise.
I’m sure you realize that whether a human is male or female is not always an easy exercise (even when considering only the physiological aspects of the issue and not the psychological).
You are simply hand-waving away the specific responses to your objections from me and others–you aren’t addressing them directly.
Yes, I disagree with that. It isn’t true except in the most arbitrary sense. It’s not scientifically useful.
I’m waiting for you to define your terms. You keep handwaving THAT away. Your question cannot be addressed without a scientifically valid definition of “race,” and you haven’t provided that yet. Studies which use arbitrary definitions based on self-identification are not valid.
Studies published in top-tier peer reviewed journals by doctoral-level researchers are not valid because…you say so. Got it.
What studies give a scientific definition of race, and what exactly IS that definition?
What do you mean exactly? Are you saying that if I were to attempt to categorize people into different races that I wouldn’t be able to do it?
What do you think of the study above showing that people are very good at identifying their own race? Doesn’t that show that self-identification is not automatically invalid?
What do you mean by “a scientific definition of race”? I just want to nail down those goalposts.
I’m saying you wouldn’t be able to do it in a way that wasn’t arbitrary or which had any biological meaning.
It’s pretty easy – I’m asking how “race” is defined biologically for subdivisions of the species homo sapiens. It is not a subspecies or a genetic categorization, so what is it? What biologists even use the word?
Debate by any other name is still debate.
Off to Great Debates it goes.
Dio, click on the first link of this search: genetic structure of human populations - Google Search
The article discusses that the researches grouped people into populations looking only at genetic factors, and the self-reported race of respondents almost exactly matched the populations. So there’s your scientific definition of race. Also, if you haven’t read it already, read the article above debunking Lewontin. That is really old stuff–you really shouldn’t still be repeating it.
Let’s make it easier for you, Dio. Do you think there are any biological differences between Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela? I’ll assume you answer in the affirmative. Do you think it’s possible to look at all humans and put some of them in the same category that Bill Clinton is in or the same category that Nelson Mandela is in (with the understanding that some people will be in neither category and some people will share characteristics of people in both categories)?
Also, to get back to the main point of this thread (before I followed the inevitable hijack into the definition of “race”), the point here is that we are just looking at people do science and then reacting to it. Someone upthread mentioned their steadfast belief in the existence of something called a “covalent bond.” I share that steadfast belief. But I’ve never performed a single experiment to determine whether anything called a “covalent bond” exists. I’ve just believed the science. In the same manner, I believe the science about evolution and race/IQ studies and have reservations about the science about AGW for the reasons mentioned in the OP. There aren’t any value judgments about people involved here–just reactions to science performed by others.
The problem with this thread is that it IS a debate thread, but it incorporates three separate debates.
Rand Rover, you are free to re-post your OP as three separate threads, but this thread has self-destruction written all over it.
[ /Moderating ]