tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4106337364777116129..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ian Cromwell Talks About Zombies and Racists at Eschaton 2012Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45407324510708399732012-12-13T10:53:30.683-05:002012-12-13T10:53:30.683-05:00I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dive...I'm not quite sure what you mean by "divergence among broad human groups", so I'm not sure if we all agree. What I would say is that there's divergence between any two geographically distant populations.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7025470909476860662012-12-13T04:11:46.823-05:002012-12-13T04:11:46.823-05:00"For subspecies, there is too."
Whats t..."For subspecies, there is too."<br /><br />Whats the criteria for subspecies?Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6978893772683175322012-12-13T04:08:47.762-05:002012-12-13T04:08:47.762-05:00Harsham, I already said I agree with you. I'm ...Harsham, I already said I agree with you. I'm not defending that we should consider them races. What I'm saying is that the concept of races/subspecies is too arbitrary. Surely I can separate broad categories, but they will be far from perfect, and when you get down to very specific ethnologies it gets far worse. My point is only that we should try to be consistent across the board, nothing else. And as I said before, even at the level of species it gets trickier. I think we all agree that there is divergence among broad human groups. The question is if it makes sense or not to call them races and where do we draw the line if we do so.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51972090180417890182012-12-12T18:05:25.347-05:002012-12-12T18:05:25.347-05:00Larry,
Paraphyly and polyphyly are quite differen...Larry,<br /><br />Paraphyly and polyphyly are quite different animals. Yes, we allow for paraphyly in species; we have to if we're using the "biological" species concept. (Of course, given enough time, that paraphyly goes away and both groups become monophyletic.) But in such cases the "daughter" species has some identifiable synapomorphies and the "parent" species some identifiable symplesomorphies that make both groups diagnosable. What do you have? And why is Africa one race instead of lots of them? It's all arbitrary. For species there's an objective criterion (or several, depending on that species concept). For subspecies, there is too. For human subspecies, not so much.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62554319935330662602012-12-12T15:38:15.414-05:002012-12-12T15:38:15.414-05:00John,
Unfortunately, biology isn't as simple ...John,<br /><br />Unfortunately, biology isn't as simple as you imagine.<br /><br />Think of any cladogenesis event where a small part of the parent population become geographically isolated and eventually evolves to the point where the individuals can no longer interbreed with the members of the larger parental population. <br /><br />At that point we have two species where there used to be only one. When you construct a phylogenetic tree using DNA from shortly after the speciation event, you will discover that the "parent" species is paraphyletic. That's the word I should have used as some helpful commenter pointed out. <br /><br />Do you agree that we commonly refer to some distinct groups that are paraphyletic, as in the parent species in my example?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78063830193028587012012-12-12T14:25:59.826-05:002012-12-12T14:25:59.826-05:00I probably should have said this a while ago, but ...I probably should have said this a while ago, but "...a distinctive, but somewhat polyphyletic, group..."? Did you even read that to yourself before posting? Polyphyletic groups aren't real groups. You should have been called on that a while ago. I apologize for the delay.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68207422682571759062012-12-12T13:34:54.798-05:002012-12-12T13:34:54.798-05:00Ian Cromwell has a response up, here: http://freet...Ian Cromwell has a response up, here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/12/10/a-response-to-larry-moran/<br /><br />I (and probably others) would love to hear your thoughts on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10361873567791861962012-12-12T12:26:47.624-05:002012-12-12T12:26:47.624-05:00I defy you to identify a randomly chosen person fr...I defy you to identify a randomly chosen person from the world as Asian or African or White. OK, a high proportion of those will be Chinese, which you will probably call Asian. But what are you going to do with Iranians? Pushtun? Gurkhas? How about a randomly chosen Brazilian? What's a Melanesian? A Keralan? I could go on.<br /><br />Consistency is lacking because so much of the assignment is arbitrary. Life is fairly easy if you're only trying to separate Scots from Nigerians from Chinese. Or, as another poster said, South American Indians from Central Asians from Malagasy. But if you have to deal with all the continuous variation of the real world, races just don't work.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34637443070731588322012-12-12T04:50:20.035-05:002012-12-12T04:50:20.035-05:00I agree with you in everything you said regarding ...I agree with you in everything you said regarding the tricky business of the use of the concept of subspecies. I also mentioned before that even the concept of species is far from perfect. <br /><br />"dog breeds are easily identified and separable from all other breeds. A dog either is a cocker spaniel or is not. Now try that with "Asian" (by a means other than location)."<br /><br />True, but you can identify someone as "asian" versus "african" or "white" or whatever is the fashion these days. The question here is if it makes sense to call that race/subspecies or just consider it variation within a population. I'm agnostic on that, the only thing I want is consistency of use, and sometimes that consistency appears lacking.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86566367689011997992012-12-12T00:45:33.997-05:002012-12-12T00:45:33.997-05:00The same way you could pick any 3 points on earth ...The same way you could pick any 3 points on earth far enough and cluster people into them. Why don't we cluster humans whether they are South American Aboriginal/Central Asian/Malagasy. I could sequence your genome or anyone's and say they fall into one of these clusters with high confidence a lot of the time - therefore humankind is broken down into 3 races - South American Aboriginals, Central Asians, and the Malagasy people.<br /><br />You realize that all you're doing is creating artificial groups from a gradient of variation.Dernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29794981234232052472012-12-11T16:12:23.770-05:002012-12-11T16:12:23.770-05:00Shoku: I would reply to you, but I still have no c...Shoku: I would reply to you, but I still have no clear idea of what point you're trying to make, or what question you're trying to ask, if any.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18786845368980002532012-12-11T14:24:18.817-05:002012-12-11T14:24:18.817-05:00I don't expect many of the recognizable racial...I don't expect many of the recognizable racial features to be anything you could select for. Pigment is the big exception there but as we know fairly large groups of humans move around faster than the selective force can keep up in regards to that trait. Lots of things are under a few constraints of course but racial traits fall in the same boundaries (as far as I can tell) in all regards except cultural preference, but that's really short term compared to how long it took to establish the traits in the first place.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83209894906283325312012-12-11T13:09:03.619-05:002012-12-11T13:09:03.619-05:00Human populations that have been isolated from eac...Human populations that have been isolated from each other for many generations aren't Africans, Europeans and Asians so far as I know. Australian Aborigines and Amerian Indians and African pygmies (sorry if there's a politer word now in use, I don't know it.) New Guinea Highlanders and Pacific Islanders and Inuit I think also seem to count. In any event, the sets of alleles that distinguish such groups don't seem to overlap with anything that has been previously meant by the term "race." And I'm sorry, I don't think it really is so easy to distinguish Tamils, Solomon Islanders, Yoruba or Malays, Nepalis, Yaquis, Chukchis. About all I really get is that most people feel quite confident in identifying European, aka "white." I don't think it's so unreasonable for people not to want to go there.S Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068751705809284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86565989080910795342012-12-11T10:45:58.759-05:002012-12-11T10:45:58.759-05:00Do you agree that we can look at the DNA of an ind...<i>Do you agree that we can look at the DNA of an individual and determine with high probability whether their closest relatives live in Africa, Asia, or Europe?</i><br /><br />Some individuals. Others, not so much. You can easily distinguish individuals from widely separated locations (or could before the modern mass migrations began), but not so easily from closer locations. So where does Asia end and Europe begin? A transect across the Silk Road would cause problems for your ideas. A transect from India to China across the Himalayas would cause similar problems. Not to leave Africa out, and transect up the Nile, ditto. There's plenty of geographic variation in <i>H. sapiens</i>, but any biologist who tried to divide it into subspecies would end up with nothing useful. Clinal variation just doesn't work well for this.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82900551595598897432012-12-11T10:39:06.290-05:002012-12-11T10:39:06.290-05:00You could call different breeds of dog subspecies ...You could call different breeds of dog subspecies if you liked. They do fit the common notion, more or less. But nobody does. There's no perceived utility in talking about subspecies of domestic animals. However, if you did, it would be instructive: dog breeds are easily identified and separable from all other breeds. A dog either is a cocker spaniel or is not. Now try that with "Asian" (by a means other than location).<br /><br />As I've said, there's considerable argument in biology about whether "subspecies" is a useful concept. Those who favor the phylogenetic species concept generally prefer to recognize what would otherwise be called subspecies as phylogenetic species. Those who prefer the "biological" species concept talk about polytypic species, and designate subspecies, most commonly for isolated populations. Splitters vs. lumpers, to some degree. But in the 19th century, it seems as if every tiny variation got its own subspecies, and many of those aren't diagnosable at all, other than by location; we're still cleaning up that mess.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64968566326884686422012-12-11T10:31:39.431-05:002012-12-11T10:31:39.431-05:00I think you got no reply because nobody is sure wh...I think you got no reply because nobody is sure what you were proposing. What would be the mechanism for migrants to come to resemble natives? I can think of two: selection and interbreeding (which of course are not mutually exclusive). The second is trivial, and the first would require a selective regime; i.e. what would drive selection here? I could come up with notions, but what's yours?john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40428482986221167742012-12-11T05:54:09.863-05:002012-12-11T05:54:09.863-05:00It seems entirely acceptable to say "individu...<i>It seems entirely acceptable to say "individuals with Character A can trace part of their lineage back to region X". It does not seem okay to say "individuals with Character A are RACE NAME." </i><br /><br />I don't understand why this bothers you so much. Is it because we're dealing with humans? If we were discussing the subspecies of a particular plant, say dandelions, would you still have the same objections?<br /><br />Or is it the fact that you name one particular character? Do you agree that we can look at the DNA of an individual and determine with high probability whether their closest relatives live in Africa, Asia, or Europe? We have to use several characters to reach that high probability but one or two will still be good enough in most cases.<br /><br />If you did this with dandelions you wouldn't hesitate to call them subspecies or races, would you?<br /><br /><i> I think helping people understand the limits of phylogenies is vitally important lest the layperson use race (as they have done already) to label and subjugate others based on a minute fraction of their genome.</i><br /><br />I think it's always wrong to distort or misrepresent science on the grounds that the truth might be abused. The fact that human races exist does not mean that discrimination (racism) is justified. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90451472781715890222012-12-11T04:26:17.419-05:002012-12-11T04:26:17.419-05:00I'm aware of the term subspecies (I work in bi...I'm aware of the term subspecies (I work in biology), but it doesn't help either if we substitute subspecies for race. For the general public it will sound even worse.<br /><br />And as I said, I'm not saying that these concepts are set in stone or that they are perfect. I referred to the problem of the concept of species, which is far from solved, but which is still useful. The question here is if the concept of race/subspecies is also useful or not. If it is, then what is the definition and does it apply to humans or not and why. <br /><br />As for dogs, maybe you're right (I work in microbiology/genetics), but being the product of artificial selection (through selective breeding and enforced isolation) doesn't mean you can't obtain different subspecies/races. One doesn't imply the other, I think, or does it? If I create a new species in a lab are you going to tell me that it's not a new "species" because I made it? What about dogs, cows, wheat, etc, aren't they all considered different species from their natural original counterparts even though they were obtained by selective breeding? If that is the case, why the problem when it comes to subspecies instead of species?Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58013192129244535862012-12-11T02:29:03.460-05:002012-12-11T02:29:03.460-05:00How about a thought exercise!
I am YEC but will us...How about a thought exercise!<br />I am YEC but will use your terms.<br />Say there is a breeding population , separated by a mountain chain from another and then another mt chain with another population.<br />They breed for 10,000 years completely segregated. <br />At the end the first and third populations look almost or totally alike but the middle looks dramatically unlike the other two because of unique environment..<br /><br />Are all three RACES or just two races?<br />If simply being segregated breeding populations makes one a race then there are races.<br />Yet if only looking differently is what allows races then there are no races.<br /><br />All there is IS segregated breeding populations and its a coicedence if they look different.<br />Its been clumbsy thinking by evolutionism to simply define race by looks.<br />Further it ignores totally unlike "races" could look alike for like adaptations to the environment.<br /><br /><br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44637946784529004862012-12-10T23:54:08.594-05:002012-12-10T23:54:08.594-05:00First, let me say I'm not a human geneticist, ...First, let me say I'm not a human geneticist, I'm a botanist. That said....<br /><br /><i>Genetically isolated does NOT mean there's no gene flow between the groups. Is there was none, they would be different species.</i><br /><br />I disagree. While arguing species concepts is a losing battle, this is a fairly loose interpretation of any species concept with which I am familiar.<br /><br />Secondly, race is a taxonomic rank. To be valid, any taxonomic rank demands description, publication and vouchers. And unless one is looking to pad their CV, establishing taxonomic ranks should serve some scientifically useful purpose. In any event, I am aware of no such publications and no vouchers against which we can compare human and assign them to races. Even if such a publication exists, the taxonomist had to make subjective decisions about which suite of characters define the race and how much difference warranted delineation into separate races. Defining below the taxonomic rank of species is just as specious as defining ranks above it.<br /><br />Yes, there is genetic structure within species that we can use to build phylogenies. And yes, we can decorate our trees with ancillary data to tell, for instance, a nice biogeographical story about our ancestors. But we need to communicate that phylogenies are hypotheses, and as such, need to be narrowly interpreted. It seems entirely acceptable to say "individuals with Character A can trace part of their lineage back to region X". It does not seem okay to say "individuals with Character A are RACE NAME." The latter is to use the phylogeny as a blunt force instrument. I think helping people understand the limits of phylogenies is vitally important lest the layperson use race (as they have done already) to label and subjugate others based on a minute fraction of their genome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2520115828910087682012-12-10T17:28:25.414-05:002012-12-10T17:28:25.414-05:00I thought that would quickly provoke somebody to s...I thought that would quickly provoke somebody to say most of those subtle differences in facial shapes aren't particularly adaptive but are more the trademark of genetic drift and the other low popularity mechanisms. That the Caucasian population might take on some very shallow traits (I'm talking perceptually here,) that natives developed but generally not shift into looking like the natives.<br /><br />I'm not entirely confident in my ability to support that as the actual way these mechanisms would play out, but I expected somebody else here to practically have this on the tip of their tongue will a good deal of support.<br /><br />This leaves me a bit worried that I may have picked these notions up from professors who had no more support for it than I. Is there anybody familiar with this subject that can tell me if this is the case?Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17907906880880569292012-12-10T12:13:42.829-05:002012-12-10T12:13:42.829-05:00Actually, biologists seldom use the term "rac...Actually, biologists seldom use the term "race" these days. "Subspecies" is the common term. And in fact, some biologists deny that subspecies is a useful concept. Subspecies are most often geographically isolated populations, which doesn't generally happen in humans. There should at least be some sort of discontinuity, which again we don't really see in humans. Instead we see fairly smooth variation and differences among populations that increase with distance. It's easy to tell Thais from French, but not so easy to tell Uighurs from Turkmens. So what exactly is an "Asian"?<br /><br />As for dogs, there are no races of dogs; there are breeds, and breeds are maintained by artificial selection, a form of enforced isolation.john harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8537282837982957502012-12-10T06:03:59.624-05:002012-12-10T06:03:59.624-05:00"However, the fact that there ARE differences..."However, the fact that there ARE differences among humans is NOT evidence for the existence of human races. Those differences would have to be of a particular nature to be so, and they are not."<br /><br />What particular nature of differences would qualify in your opinion?<br /><br /><br />"It is the lack of discrete genetic boundaries between human populations that make up the scientific case for the non-existence of human races, not a lack of any genetic differences at all"<br /><br />What discrete genetic boundaries are there between different races of e.g. dogs? Or do you think there are no races in dogs?<br /><br /><br />As you correctly state, no one argues that there are no genetics differences between discreet human populations (Asians, Blacks, etc). The whole point is how do we clearly define what constitutes a race or not and as such come to the conclusion that there are human races or not. This is something that quite honestly is not clear to me at all, and it seems that a lot of biologists will have no problem using the term race everywhere but suddenly come to halt when it comes to humans because they are afraid that will help racism. There's a lack of coherence regarding this question. I'm not saying it's an easy question; one just has to look at *ring species* to see that there's not even a clear definition of species even at the animal level that works flawlessly. But we need to be as consistent as possible.<br /><br />Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59037658492677699952012-12-09T07:18:40.014-05:002012-12-09T07:18:40.014-05:00ok, I should refrain from posting while drinking w...ok, I should refrain from posting while drinking wine as I was last night...but I was not attempting to erect strawman. Rather, was referring to genetic differences that in fact would be of a particular nature to qualify as evidence for races, not just any differences. But I have read your points and since there seems to be some debate on the overall matter, I will continue to read.Shawnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37903441077801225562012-12-09T06:45:53.280-05:002012-12-09T06:45:53.280-05:00What you meant to say is not clear to me from what...What you meant to say is not clear to me from what your wrote. You SEEM to be saying that there are "categorical genetic differences amongst humans", and that you think someone is insisting that there are not.<br /><br />If that is what you meant to say, it appears to be a strawman argument: no one in this discussion has said that there are no differences among humans.<br /><br />However, the fact that there ARE differences among humans is NOT evidence for the existence of human races. Those differences would have to be of a particular nature to be so, and they are not. <br /><br />It is the lack of discrete genetic boundaries between human populations that make up the scientific case for the non-existence of human races, not a lack of any genetic differences at all. Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008012554198066886noreply@blogger.com