We could use the word "race" to distinguish the largest of these subpopulations if the word wasn't so loaded with non-scientific meaning. I believe that, from a scientific perspective, humans races exist. [Do Human Races Exist?]. Jerry Coyne is much better (braver?) than I at defending the biological and evolutionary reality of human races and attacking the well-meaning, but mistaken, attempt to deny the existence of human races. [Genetic ignorance in the service of ideology] It's part of a larger effort to combat something he calls The Ideological Subversion of Biology. The point he's making is that we are teaching our children a number of misconceptions that conflict with science and this contributes to a mistrust of science.
There are two sides to this story. Kostas Kampourakis does not believe that human races exist. He has been awarded a "Friend of Darwin" award by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) so I assume that NSCE—a strong promoter of science education in the United States—endorses his views on human races.
Here's a seminar that Kampourakis gave to the Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES) in February 2023. According to their website, "TIES provides middle school and elementary teachers the tools they need to effectively teach evolution and answer its critics based on new Next Generation Science Standards." I assume this means that they want their science teachers to teach that human biological races do not exist.
Watch the video to see how Kampourakis presents his version of the scientific case against human races. It will give you a good idea of why this controversy is so difficult to resolve.
"Examines the differences between race, nationality, and ethnicity and the extent to which these concepts are socially constructed, not genetically determined."
1. This is not to deny that interbreeding between the groups can take place, they are, after all, part of the same species. That means that many individuals carry DNA markers from one or more groups and if this mixing continues in the future the distinctiveness of the groups will disappear.
8 comments :
As a population geneticist whose career is focused on distinguishing discrete from continuous genetic structure, human races don't exist. But we need to be clear about what that means.
To say "human races don't exist" is not the same as saying there are no genetic differences in humans. Of course there are. There are genetic differences between you and your parents, between you and your cousins, etc. It also doesn't mean that you can't cluster humans into groups - you could, for example, if you trained a large enough dataset on human sequences tell someone with a high degree of confidence where their ancestors lived on the planet. This is due to the very simple fact that dispersal is limited and so there are correlations between ancestry and geography.
Next, we need to be clear in that what we're talking about is whether our social concepts of race correspond to biological races as defined taxonomically. Importantly, taxonomically, we create groups to represent discrete biological entities, and these discrete entities need to display a few characteristics to be defined as such. For example, they should have more diversity between than within the race. Traits used to define "race" should be monophyletic (e.g., if I say "black skin" defines the "African race," then all individuals with the trait should be more related to each other than they are to any other skin color). And, importantly, ancestry should show discrete breaks - it should not be continuous across space. For biological populations with continuous population structure, any cluster is necessarily arbitrary (and hence not biologically real).
Humans do not satisfy any of these criteria. Most of the diversity among humans is shared across populations, with out-of-Africa populations being merely a subset of the diversity within Africa. Skin color is not a trait that reliably reflects ancestry - there are African populations that are more related to Europeans than they are to other Africans, and Melanesians are more related to Asian populations than to Africans, despite having the same skin color. And, most importantly, human ancestry is completely continuous. The probability you're related to someone is a simple function of geographic distance. Taxonomically, we do not break-up continuous populations into discrete units; if we do, taxonomy loses any objectivity it might have.
So we're faced with three options: 1) arbitrarily define biological races to only *kinda* correspond to our social concepts, but in a way that we wouldn't define any other living thing with (i.e., it wouldn't pass peer-review in a taxonomic journal). 2) define "race" as a town-by-town, family-by-family kind of thing in which the bounds of the genetic cluster is arbitrary. or 3) admit that social races don't correspond to biological reality - human ancestry is continuous, not discrete, with no traits that identify a race socially being reliable to do so biologically.
I don't think this is a "woke" or "politically correct" take - I think it's empirical that there are no human races, and the majority of population geneticists working in human genetics agrees.
What Zach said. Geographically structured variation is not the same thing as race, especially if the variation tends to be gradual and clinal. If you think there are human races, how many are there and what are they? Then take a transect and show where one ends and another starts.
Sorry, that was John Harshman.
Hi Zach,
How are you, dude? When are you planning to upload another video, particularly the one rebutting Denis Noble's interview on the " Variable Minds " channel? I'm anxiously waiting for your videos!
Let me know please :)
Robert Byers From a creationist point. We all come from the eight off Noahs ark. One people. I don't like the word ravce but like the wordvspecies. mankind is made of many species. nature does not care if we can interbreed. it cares about changing bodyplans coupled with the genetics to make it stick. so parents to kids. W are not one species. Anymore then butterflies are one species. What is the difference betwen creatures/insects in nature and mankind on diversity coupled with genetics? nothing.
These days they don't like saying people are different species or races because that was used in the 1800/s to say the species/races had evolved differently morally and intellectually. so superior/inferior. this is the only reason they attack human speculation/races these days. That is the social construct affecting the science. In fact just like they attack creationsm. anyways. from noahs family simply segregated populations developed new bodyplans to deakl with the areas thet migrated too.so indeed its not a trail of heritage because any segrewgated population would gain the same traits in that area. so for example in my case i am at least two species. The german and the Celtic(English/Scottish). boty species have the same bodyplan/looks only because we lived in the northern areas of europe. not becaise we are related to each other. independent reaction to the area by both originally segregated populations. likewise as in the article/comments black africans are not related because black. the bible says they are from Shem and Ham. simply upon migration to sun areas segregated unrelated popylations acquired traits. in nature bodyplan is king. so Humans are species. not races. Its just where you live.
How does junk DNA play into the genetic differences among humans? I see haplogroup maps of human dispersal like on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup.
If 90% of the human genome is junk, then the odds are that all of the differences in these maps have no impact on function. Is this true?
If so, it seems like this is an important point to emphasize, particularly by those who want to discuss patterns in human genetic diversity.
I’ve considered Larry and Jerry’s views on the biological reality of races versus John’s idea that these are merely abstractions, useful for mapping ideas but not real. Zach and John also highlight the lack of clear genetic boundaries even within species, questioning the scientific basis of such claims.
Larry and Jerry argue for confronting what they see as uncomfortable biological truths. Jerry’s essays, praised by Larry, advocate for science to pursue (unqualified) “truth,” pointing out differences between sexes and races while criticising "wokism" and “French” critical theory and forecasting that if things keep going like this in few decades “we wouldn’t recognise science at all”. Both Larry and Jerry, based on geographical location, suggest the existence of subspecies or races but struggle to define them clearly. For instance, in 2007, Larry claimed that Africans were a race with associated traits, yet failed to provide a clear framework for these distinctions (tinyurl.com/yeyjwknm). Jerry warns that rejecting these ideas could end science, yet they urge a moral commitment to equal opportunities without addressing how such claims risk legitimising harmful ideologies. History shows that morality alone has never been enough to prevent the misuse of scientific ideas.
Subspecies or races, defined as geographically distinct populations that exhibit different traits, are important for studying species evolution, as seen in Darwin’s finches in the Galápagos. Zach’s video explores adaptive landscapes, where subspecies might occupy different fitness peaks, showing the ongoing dynamics of evolution. This is a non-linear system—also reflected in how gene expression works—driven by feedback. Such systems are context-dependent and multi-causal, with outcomes shaped by interactions rather than individual components. Feedback can amplify, suppress, or stabilise changes, making outcomes unpredictable.
Yes, evolution is based on the interplay of variation and fitness, which is tied to survival and reproduction. Yet, history shows how these ideas have justified atrocities like colonialism, slavery, genocide, and patriarchy. Biology also carries the dark legacy of eugenics, including unethical experiments, discriminatory theories, and misapplications.
Some claim women have smaller brains on average, leading to different intellectual and emotional patterns. Similarly, they argue that racial groups vary in IQ. Larry and Jerry say it’s better to face these possibilities within moral frameworks that uphold the value of all human lives rather than deny them. However, their focus on IQ as an evolutionary advantage ignores reality: higher reproduction rates, a key measure of success in evolution, do not correlate with IQ.
They cite researchers like Lahn and Ebenstein, who compare rejecting these ideas to denying gravity. As Ebenstein puts it, "We need a moral response to this question that remains robust, no matter what research reveals."
The debate over human races and subpopulations raises questions about fitness, IQ, and their links to evolutionary dynamics like speciation. Yet, when we look at historical figures like Newton (who dabbled in alchemy), Wallace (a spiritualist), Margulis (who questioned mutation, HIV and 9/11), or J. Watson (a racist and eugenics supporter), it’s clear intelligence doesn’t guarantee good reasoning or progressive thinking. To me human brilliance often includes contradictions that defy simple, linear explanations.
These contradictions in human brilliance prompt a deeper question: If intelligence and reasoning are so fallible, what truly defines the essence of being human and the drivers of our evolution? Are they solely biological (e.g., natural selection, viable reproduction), or do cultural, social, and environmental dynamics play a significant role?
In this context, (scientific) truth is not absolute but dependent on evidence-based understanding, accurate predictions, and practical applications to improve our chances of surviving in harmony and peace with humans and the environment. Absolute truth is more akin to religious dogma.
To conclude, if someone claims human races exist, they must define and quantify what they mean in terms of markers and traits. Just as one would not assert the existence of cats without describing their defining characteristics, proponents must establish clear criteria. Moreover, since science is entangled with political and economic systems, they must explain how they will prevent their ideas from being misused for harm.
Yet these questions remain unanswered. Larry and Jerry frequently post on these issues but fail to address these critical objections, leaving their arguments incomplete and their conclusions unsupported.
Post a Comment