tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3028429086713172407..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Do Human Races Exist?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74559588582749373392020-01-11T09:30:22.530-05:002020-01-11T09:30:22.530-05:00Even somewhat less realists, as in their hurry to ...Even somewhat less realists, as in their hurry to reinstate the vocable "race", the actual taxonomic delineation is left undefined, and the traditional/folk delineations do more to hurt than to help the understanding of the underlying biological diversity, which, more often than not, does not seem to be denied by any of the supposedly "race-deniers". <a href="https://www.sukram.uk/product/moisture-repair-pack/" rel="nofollow">sukram</a>Sukram ukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578416154916881809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11536758576083003702015-09-08T00:23:53.316-04:002015-09-08T00:23:53.316-04:00Totally agree! If it was not for inter breeding we...Totally agree! If it was not for inter breeding we latinos would not even exist.Bellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08770134563722248280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77826951340948594892015-09-08T00:23:11.491-04:002015-09-08T00:23:11.491-04:00People are extremely afraid of the term "rac...People are extremely afraid of the term "race" because of the negative weight it has. Still, races do exist and there is nothing wrong about that. We have much more than just mere human breeds in our genome.<br />Just like different dog breeds can reproduce so can we...all humans but of different breeds...what is the problem? The problem is humans have created an atmosphere of hate and intolerance around races...the problem are not the races the problem is the human species. Bellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08770134563722248280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90381082802895550662014-06-03T11:56:46.684-04:002014-06-03T11:56:46.684-04:00or it speaks volumes that the message is unclear.or it speaks volumes that the message is unclear.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13673324309095097703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13080959088141519932012-09-18T16:11:51.303-04:002012-09-18T16:11:51.303-04:00It's interesting how so many people are racist...It's interesting how so many people are racist and believe that one race needs to date and marry the same race. Dogs mate with different types of dogs and the cross breeds live longer then the pure breeds. Something to be said. Genetic differences from different people through their ethnically my improve life span and quality of life. Mikehttp://www.rawhoney.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43110760662133368042012-04-11T19:39:38.337-04:002012-04-11T19:39:38.337-04:00I have the opinion that the so called "race-r...I have the opinion that the so called "race-realists" are more "vocablephiles" towards race than "realists" in any substantial way. <br /><br />Even somewhat less realists, as in their hurry to reinstate the vocable "race", the actual taxonomic delineation is left undefined, and the traditional/folk delineations do more to hurt than to help the understanding of the underlying biological diversity, which, more often than not, does not seem to be denied by any of the supposedly "race-deniers". <br /><br />At the same time, race "realists" won't deny that we can't delineate human populations as "discrete entities" in a species-like/creationist-like way, accepting that it would got to indeed be fuzzy, and fuzzier, less precise than species. That whatever the eventually consensual/standard "races" would be, they'd probably be much more like the common understanding of "populations" than the common understanding of "races". But the term "race" got to be used anyway, and it's just "denial" and PCness not to...<br /><br /><br /><br />There are some "vocablephobes" in the other side anyway. But I think most people with some biological knowledge who are labeled as "race deniers" would be satisfied if, instead of having more concern with a political discourse (oh, the irony) of reinstating the term "race" and saying that "races exist", "race-realists" reached to some consensual/standard taxonomy, and, when speaking to the lay public, were more emphatic that actual races do not give validity to old, creationist-like or racist notions, and that they do not even necessarily match the social concept, that we can have someone who's "socially black", but is genetically/racially more "white", and so on.dschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05153318861070317827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61549155786803798752012-04-07T20:35:24.565-04:002012-04-07T20:35:24.565-04:00The arguments and this post could be summed in two...The arguments and this post could be summed in two statements: <br /><br />1) What the average person believes is a race is a social construct. <br />2) While there may be biological differences among different groups in the population- it is not particularly useful for any field of biology to investigate these differences in a manner attempting to explain macro-level phenomena beyond the level of systems physiology (beyond meaning concepts such as behaviour, personality). <br /><br />The last statement is not motivated by social responsibility or political correctness, simply put the science and tools available to make these assertions with confidence are not available, therefore any claims made would be, in my opinion, a result of bad science.thummimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02333314586940248330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33592627258232748312012-03-10T01:26:49.006-05:002012-03-10T01:26:49.006-05:00Those blacks with white admixture are now whites, ...Those blacks with white admixture are now whites, and those whites with black admixture are now black.So much for that nonsense about one drop of black blood making one black! <br /> Ah, that second part seems to qualify under the old standard,but people prattle about passing as white, and some who look white call themselves black.<br /> Anyway,racism is so stupid!<br /> I welcome those of further off lines of Lamberths who say that they have Inidan ancestory but actually black instead! I have a biracial baby cousin on the Lynn line two families away. Gee, and I was a racist from around eleven until sixteen1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86353315512309368162012-03-08T17:44:29.626-05:002012-03-08T17:44:29.626-05:00***Everyone who agrees that humanity is split into...***Everyone who agrees that humanity is split into "races" will NEVER try to define/number/delimit them...will realize the arbitrariness of it all and just give up.***<br /><br />Not really. Just start with the subspecies concept and its criteria, see how the criteria are applied in practice, and evaluate human populations. <br /><br />From O'Brien & Mayr, 1991:<br /><br />"Members of a subspecies share a unique geographical range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species."<br /><br />(O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies.)<br /><br />It doesn't seem that hard to find populations that meet that criteria (see Sesardic 2010, also table 1 in Gill (1998) “Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race.”).Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133142115539961665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14912566967339016222012-03-07T16:19:13.469-05:002012-03-07T16:19:13.469-05:00The best way to undermine a person's own faith...The best way to undermine a person's own faith in the division of humanity into a set of "fuzzy races" is to simply ask them to name/mark/delimit those "races" and list the factors (geographical/morphological/etc) they used.<br /><br />After many rounds of trying to convince everyone (in their OWN camp) that THEIR schema is the correct one, the budding "race realist" will realize the arbitrariness of it all and just give up.<br /><br />Everyone who agrees that humanity is split into "races" will NEVER try to define/number/delimit them. It's just too damaging to their own camp.TIFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63060947039544069562012-03-06T11:36:06.657-05:002012-03-06T11:36:06.657-05:00Why should anyone care? That's the great thing...Why should anyone care? That's the great thing about the internet: nobody knows you're a dog. You have to rely on actual arguments.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58270351355406826162012-03-06T11:27:23.338-05:002012-03-06T11:27:23.338-05:00What makes you think that groups that could be def...What makes you think that groups that could be defined as races / subspecies actually correlate to the prejudiced stereotypes of the past?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52431121192785735372012-03-05T20:17:50.437-05:002012-03-05T20:17:50.437-05:00I wonder if anyone of color or other population of...I wonder if anyone of color or other population of historically or socially oppressed people are participating in this thread. If so, what do you think?Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85055175190500721122012-03-05T03:58:15.616-05:002012-03-05T03:58:15.616-05:00Oups, thanks for the correction.Oups, thanks for the correction.mrrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739692453151019735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44365860422120677392012-03-03T17:49:28.265-05:002012-03-03T17:49:28.265-05:00I disagree with Risch on the meaning of those find...I disagree with Risch on the meaning of those findings. It just tells me that there are no races. Not only are there easily found intermediate populations, the continental "races" he finds are as different across distances than are populations he would assign to different races *if* the distance counted is not across an ocean but through an inhabited region. Such as, for example, a transect down the Nile.<br /><br />And we really should contrast distinct subspecies, with at most narrow hybrid zones at meeting points, with simple isolation by distance, in which the distribution of differences is fairly continuous.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41849802360003064012012-03-03T15:52:26.921-05:002012-03-03T15:52:26.921-05:00**But if you take a transect across Africa to Egyp...**But if you take a transect across Africa to Egypt, across the Middle East, through Turkey, and west through Europe, where is the dividing line?***<br /><br />Subspecies aren't pure categories in whatever species they are found. Almost every subspecies (not necessarily every individual member of the respective subspecies though) has some admixture from other subspecies. In contact zones of different subspecies, admixture from other subspecies rises to high levels and we classify such individuals and groups as hybrids of different subspecies. <br /><br />Neil Risch also notes:<br /><br />"The continental definitions of race and ancestry need some modification, because it is clear that migrations have blurred the strict continental boundaries. For example, individuals currently living in South Africa, although currently Africans, have very different ancestry, race and ethnicity depending on the ancestry of their forbears (for example from Europe or Asia) and the degree to which they have remained endogamous. For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. Native Americans are those that have indigenous ancestry in North and South America. Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."<br /><br />http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133142115539961665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90693926255861514002012-03-03T09:29:48.106-05:002012-03-03T09:29:48.106-05:00Geographic structure is not the same as subspecifi...Geographic structure is not the same as subspecific differentiation. You can come up with unique geographic clusters provided you don't sample adequately across the intervening distance. Barriers, unless there is complete geographic isolation, merely increase the effective distance. But what Rosenberg et al. show is simply explained as isolation by distance. Yes, people in Morocco are different from people in France. And more different than the straight line distance would suggest. But if you take a transect across Africa to Egypt, across the Middle East, through Turkey, and west through Europe, where is the dividing line?<br /><br />And Ernst Mayr, brilliant scientist that he is, presents no argument about this in the chapter you cite. Most valid subspecies are allopatric and would qualify as phylogenetic species. There's none of that in <i>H. sapiens</i>.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56014235213816437332012-03-02T23:29:03.562-05:002012-03-02T23:29:03.562-05:00***But with the human species it's all edges, ...***But with the human species it's all edges, all fuzziness. Isolation by distance and nothing much else. This wouldn't count as having subspecies for any other species either***<br /><br />Can you elaborate on this? This seems contrary to what Rosenberg et al found with their paper on Clusters & Clines (see excerpt above). <br /><br />Also, it seems that:<br /><br />a) There are (some) genetic clusters/clades.<br />b) Members share (or did share ) a unique geographical range or habitat<br />c) Members share a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species.<br />d) Members share patterns of heritable phenotypic differences (frequency).<br /><br />This seems consistent with O’Brien and Mayr’s (1991) criteria. Also, see Mayr's comments here:<br /><br />…No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be, the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races – established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy – agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact. (Mayr, 2002. The biology of race and the concept of equality).<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/88489wtMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133142115539961665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5407563246983645352012-03-02T21:13:19.364-05:002012-03-02T21:13:19.364-05:00The table I understand actually was put together b...The table I understand actually was put together by John Goodrum on Race FAQ.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42533461928166940592012-03-02T21:08:53.983-05:002012-03-02T21:08:53.983-05:00Speaking of that table, where the hell did they ge...Speaking of that table, where the hell did they get a genetic distance for humans vs. Homo erectus?<br /><br />It says: "Human vs. Homo erectus (inferred)". Looking up the reference:<br /><br />Curnoe, D. and A. Thorne (2003). "Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective." HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 53(3), 201-224.<br /><br />Basically they take the time for <i>H. sapiens</i> vs. <i>H. erectus</i> from the fossil record, and molecular rates from other clades, and extrapolate what the distance "would be". This is actually mildly interesting, e.g. if we ever got lucky and got DNA from an <i>erectus</i>, but it's not data at the moment. And there are huge problems with even defining <i>erectus</i>, as the taxon is virtually certain to be paraphyletic.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69864306908319911042012-03-02T20:51:32.548-05:002012-03-02T20:51:32.548-05:00Hehe. Apparently we've switched sides on dema...Hehe. Apparently we've switched sides on demarcation arguments!<br /><br />I'll agree that species can be objectively distinguished in many instances, despite occasional blurriness and intermediates and lack of a One True Perfect Definition of species, if you'll agree that science and pseudoscience can be objectively distinguished in many instances, despite occasional blurriness and intermediates and lack of a One True Perfect Definition of science.<br /><br />That said, humans haven't reached anything like the level of even a ring species, there being no infertility pattern whatsoever. The relevant "level" to argue about is subspecies, but (a) everyone agrees that their definition is much squidgier than "species", and (b) if you look at the various definitions usually used for subspecies, humans don't seem to quality.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35565055238016310472012-03-02T14:44:19.676-05:002012-03-02T14:44:19.676-05:00I completely disagree with your interpretation of ...I completely disagree with your interpretation of Nick's point. Go ahead and read the gull paper, for one thing. It doesn't say what you seem to imagine it says. And it isn't that -- in the human case specifically -- the edges are fuzzy. That would be so if there were, for example, some kind of narrow hybrid zones. But with the human species it's all edges, all fuzziness. Isolation by distance and nothing much else. This wouldn't count as having subspecies for any other species either. Many subspecies in songbirds, for example, were erected just to cover clinal variation and have been abandoned because the subspecies only work if you consider only end members and ignore the clines.<br /><br />There are some good ring species, the best being the West Coast <i>Ensatina</i> complex. And a good ring species will cause trouble for any species concept. Just goes to show you that "species" is a good enough abstraction of true biological variation much of the time, but not all of the time. Same with subspecies: works great for long-term geographically isolated populations, not so well otherwise.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80682411674671850162012-03-02T14:23:06.023-05:002012-03-02T14:23:06.023-05:00Here is the Scientific American article: Does Race...Here is the Scientific American article: <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023558/posts" rel="nofollow">Does Race Exist?</a>Michael Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993311303340418048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22753231737303432732012-03-02T14:21:46.730-05:002012-03-02T14:21:46.730-05:00The Wikipedia article refers to studies that quest...The Wikipedia article refers to studies that question the "ring species" concept but that wasn't the point.<br /><br />Nick's point was more like saying that the gull data indicates that species, subspecies, and races don't exist because the edges are fuzzy. Do you agree with that point?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30994118010108290872012-03-02T12:45:56.143-05:002012-03-02T12:45:56.143-05:00Larry, it was probably unfortunate that you invoke...Larry, it was probably unfortunate that you invoked the Herring Gull ring species to illustrate your point. First, it isn't actually a ring species. Second, ring species would seem to make Nick's point, not yours and Jerry's. Yes, they do indeed create problems for species concepts.<br /><br />Anyway, check this:<br /><br />Lievers, D., P. de Knijff, and A. J. Helbig. 2004. The herring gull complex is not a ring species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 271:893-901.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.com