tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3927059603000528962..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Human RacesLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8500497232684271982009-11-01T21:29:58.649-05:002009-11-01T21:29:58.649-05:00<< Any group of humans are large clusters of...<< Any group of humans are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in any group of humans are different. It is not a requirement that any group of humans have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed >><br /><br /><< Any group of humans in a pub or a plane are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in any group of humans in a pub or a plan eare different. It is not a requirement that any group of humans in a pub or a plane have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed >>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51070284865998684202009-11-01T21:21:45.119-05:002009-11-01T21:21:45.119-05:00Moran said : << My argument—and I'm not ...Moran said : << My argument—and I'm not alone in this—is that this is a strawman. No reasonable biologist would make the claim he attributes to them. Races are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in those races are different. It is not a requirement that the races have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed.>> <br /><br />>>> <br /><br />Families are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in those Families are different. It is not a requirement that the Families have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed<br /><br />>> Nations are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in those Nations are different. It is not a requirement that the Nations have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed<br /><br />sicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85061221755637749182009-10-23T23:06:03.576-04:002009-10-23T23:06:03.576-04:00As Lewontin argued years ago, the concept of race ...As Lewontin argued years ago, the concept of race is a social and not genetic entity. This is because there is more variation of genes within a "race" rather than between them.<br /><br />That's a completely ridiculous argument. <br /><br />The same thing is true of newly formed species, which, of course, come from races as Darwin so clearly explained back in 1859.<br /><br />Do you deny the existence of closely related species on the grounds that there's more variation within them than between them?<br /><br />Perhaps you can enlighten us on your strange theory of speciation? How do you imagine that new species could form from a single species (by cladogenesis) without there ever being a time when there's more variation within the two separating populations than here is between them?<br /><br />Lewontin's writing on this topic is very confusing. I suspect it's more motivated by his opposition to racism and biological determinism than by biology. However, he does not use the argument you use to refute the existence of races. He uses it to argue that even if races exist we are all still more similar genetically than we are different [see the aptly titled: Confusion About Human Races]<br /><br /><br /><br />The standard concept of defining species arises from their inability to produce viable offspring , not their genetic similarity. Thus, even if it was true that two species had greater genetic variability within rather than between them I would still classify them as separate species. The error in defining race is attempting to apply similar classification to humans which are but one species. That' s why the concept of race applies to genetic variability ,not the ability to produce viable offspring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37064431748841854912009-10-18T11:17:23.661-04:002009-10-18T11:17:23.661-04:00Second, Lewontin uses the common argument that the...<i>Second, Lewontin uses the common argument that there's no set of genetic markers that uniquely defines a particular race...</i><br /><br />I've actually had people tell me, with a straight face, that there is no genetic cause for skin colour. Well excuse me for only having a Grade 13 biology credit, but how the hell else can skin colour be determined if not by genes ? Is there a little gnome sitting in each delivery room with a set of paint pots? Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there any other way outside of short-term solar or chemical effects?The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71062507983529707172009-10-18T09:53:07.331-04:002009-10-18T09:53:07.331-04:00continuing ....
First, it's not correct to sa...continuing ....<br /><br />First, it's not correct to say that biologists have abandoned the concept of race in other species. Check out any evolutionary biology textbook or the scientific literature. You'll find lots of references to races or subspecies.<br /><br />Second, Lewontin uses the common argument that there's no set of genetic markers that uniquely defines a particular race and there are many groups of people who don't fit conveniently into one of the classic races. Therefore races don't exist. <br /><br />My argument—and I'm not alone in this—is that this is a strawman. No reasonable biologist would make the claim he attributes to them. Races are large clusters of individuals that are genetically isolated from each other. The frequency of alleles in those races are different. It is not a requirement that the races have been separated for such a long time that many alleles have become fixed. <br /><br />No biologist would deny that there are hybrids in all species that have races. No biologist would deny that there are other, smaller, populations within the species that may not fit into the larger categories. Biology is messy. The same arguments could be applied to species but we all recognize the usefulness of the species concept. <br /><br />Finally, Lewontin stoops to the lowest possible level of scientific debate when he implies that those of us who disagree with his biological arguments are doing so because we don't know the difference between race as a "social construct" and race as a biological concept. <br /><br />I understand that for Lewontin the evils of the social construct outweigh any scientific value in identifying human races. That's where I differ. I think that scientific accuracy is paramount and, as a society, we just have to deal with the consequences. <br /><br />Races exist. So what?<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23303736948478458762009-10-18T09:51:21.894-04:002009-10-18T09:51:21.894-04:00anonymous asks,
Dr. moran it would be very benefi...anonymous asks,<br /><br /><i>Dr. moran it would be very beneficial if you analyzed the technical content of Dr. Lewontin's essay:[Confusion About Human Races] that you referenced above,<br />as he concludes the essay with "Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary."</i><br><br><br /><br />Lewontin's points aren't much different from those you see here in the comments. His main goal in life is to combat biological determinism and this includes various forms of racism where people are assigned various characteristic based solely on their perceived race.<br /><br />I strongly support him in these attempts. Lewontin is one of my personal heros.<br /><br />However, there are times when he interprets biology in light of his social preferences and this is one of those times. Here's part of the final paragraph from the article.<br /><br /><i>In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.</i><br><br><br />There are several issues here and, unfortunately, some of them are relevant and some aren't.<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75598470508671276932009-10-17T20:26:02.431-04:002009-10-17T20:26:02.431-04:00Dr. moran it would be very beneficial if you analy...Dr. moran it would be very beneficial if you analyzed the technical content of Dr. Lewontin's essay:[Confusion About Human Races] that you referenced above, <br />as he concludes the essay with "Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary." <br /><br />seeing that this position is contary to yours it would be interesting to see where the difference lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39059569257176636952009-10-17T08:21:37.562-04:002009-10-17T08:21:37.562-04:00If you want to be “scientific” and argue that “rac...<i>If you want to be “scientific” and argue that “races” of humans exist, YOU have the burden of proof.</i><br /><br />I have already stated my thoughts on this matter, I will restate them for further clarification. If a species contains members with traits confined to specific environmental conditions, and if those traits confer advantages under those conditions (with the obvious assumption that those traits have been a constant over many generations), then those members would constitute a subspecies or race. Over time those differences may become so pronounced that the race would be classified as a separate species. Nobody could seriously state that the differences between Homo sapiens nominally classified as negroid or caucasoid (to pick but two) do not confer advantages to each, assuming that they are living under purely natural (non-technological) conditions, therefore they constitute races.<br /><br />I will be the first to agree that from a sociological standpoint the term is very controversial, and with good reason (I lived through the 60s, and loudly cheered every hard-won victory for racial equality). But in the field of biology I see no need for it to be contentious outside of the actual determination of the difference itself - the fact that advantageous physical differences exist between humans in different areas of our world is incontrovertible.The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6807459632955217342009-10-16T22:20:12.353-04:002009-10-16T22:20:12.353-04:00anonymous says,
As Lewontin argued years ago, the...anonymous says,<br /><br /><i>As Lewontin argued years ago, the concept of race is a social and not genetic entity. This is because there is more variation of genes within a "race" rather than between them.</i><br><br>That's a completely ridiculous argument. <br /><br />The same thing is true of newly formed species, which, of course, come from races as Darwin so clearly explained back in 1859.<br /><br />Do you deny the existence of closely related <b>species</b> on the grounds that there's more variation within them than between them?<br /><br />Perhaps you can enlighten us on your strange theory of speciation? How do you imagine that new species could form from a single species (by cladogenesis) without there ever being a time when there's more variation within the two separating populations than here is between them? <br /><br />Lewontin's writing on this topic is very confusing. I suspect it's more motivated by his opposition to racism and biological determinism than by biology. However, he does not use the argument you use to refute the existence of races. He uses it to argue that even if races exist we are all still more similar genetically than we are different [see the aptly titled: <a href="http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/" rel="nofollow">Confusion About Human Races</a>]<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30670228551924095022009-10-16T19:32:36.800-04:002009-10-16T19:32:36.800-04:00As Lewontin argued years ago, the concept of race ...As Lewontin argued years ago, the concept of race is a social and not genetic entity. This is becuase there is more variation of genes within a "race" rather than between them. He provides examples of the polymorphisms in the ABO blood groups along with other genes. Drawing from 4 research papers, he shows that the variation within a race is 85% as opposed to less than 7% between races. You may search for his 1 hour lecture on YouTube or read his books on human genetic variation. It seems the evidence is pretty convincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55812586374886622362009-10-15T17:30:43.358-04:002009-10-15T17:30:43.358-04:00aluchko,
I happen to be politically and philosop...aluchko, <br />I happen to be politically and philosophically hostile to the concept of “race.” It has inspired me to think about, and analysis the thoughts of others on, the subject. However, I can't imagine how this would make me <i>less</i> knowledgeable about the subject.<br /><br />“Race” is a social construct. It is not a scientific fact.<br />All of your counter examples are also social constructs (for example, “red” is a social construct), but they do have scientific equivalents (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red#In_science" rel="nofollow">see wikipedia</a>).<br />It's not up to me to prove that there's nothing wrong with the idea of “race” any more than it's up to me to show how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. It's up to the proponents of the use of “race” to show that it is anything other than a scientifically useless idea (knowledge that an individual member possesses one trait gives you no additional knowledge about whether any other particular member possesses the same trait). <br /><br />There is a perfectly good scientific concept that works much better than “race” ever could. Each hereditary unit consists of two types of relationships: 1. parents and their offspring, and 2. siblings. We call them “families”.duboisisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11516800795554589412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51895428729511967132009-10-15T15:37:52.048-04:002009-10-15T15:37:52.048-04:00duboisist,
You can make that exact same argument ...duboisist,<br /><br />You can make that exact same argument about colours, or literary genres, or art styles, do you claim those groups don't exist either? Humans are very good at recognizing patterns (sometimes too good unfortunately, ie paradolia) and we suck at describing them, because we can't formalize a concept in precise terms doesn't mean the concept is invalid.<br /><br />I suspect the only reason you're treating race as different is for political reasons. And there are valid political reasons for rejecting race as a concept. However, I don't think its valid to claim you're rejecting race on a scientific basis by applying a standard that you don't apply to any number of similar concepts that lack the political implications.aluchkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14185521272093659332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47296602950679830912009-10-15T15:18:34.125-04:002009-10-15T15:18:34.125-04:00If you want to be “scientific” and argue that “rac...If you want to be “scientific” and argue that “races” of humans exist, YOU have the burden of proof.<br />Here is a brief list of some of the questions that you should be able to adequately answer before you can claim victory:<br /><br />1.Genotype or Phenotype?<br />How do you deal with the fact that genetics and appearance correlate less and less the more traits you include in your analysis?<br /><br />2.Which traits makes a “race”?<br />Are they the traits that a small part of the population have in common or are the traits that the most people have in common? What do you do when that leads to two different answers?<br /><br />3.How many “races”?<br />Four? Thirty? A thousand? Eight million? Six billion?<br /><br />4.Lumping or Splitting?<br />Where do you draw the line that will allow you to discreetly classify people as members of one “race” and not another?<br /><br />5.What do you do if there are more total members of “mixed races” than total members of “pure races?”<br />I could go on, but I think you get the point.duboisisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11516800795554589412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55604506865791698872009-10-15T08:17:18.626-04:002009-10-15T08:17:18.626-04:00"Populations with different characteristics o..."Populations with different characteristics of some trait/genotype, yes, but races, not quite."<br /><br />So you've admitted that there is such a thing as race. Now please give us your definition of it.<br /><br />I'm a blue-collar guy so I don't get into the heavy genetics of it, I go with how a sub-species is defined when I'm out there birding, herping, botanizing, or studying whatever else intrigues me in the natural world. And out there it's fairly straightforward - if there is a slight difference that gives you an advantage in certain geoclimatic conditions then you are a sub-species/race. Below that would be a morph, which is basically a regularly occurring difference which may or may not one day lead to the formation of a new race. An easily observable morph will be visible shortly as populations of Rough-legged Hawks, <i>Buteo lagopus</i>, move down into southern Ontario. Look for the dark morph, which is not melanistic, but rather has a much darker pattern over a wider area of its body.The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79362270780599023602009-10-15T03:44:44.145-04:002009-10-15T03:44:44.145-04:00InfuriatedSciTeacher:
"To those who are argui...InfuriatedSciTeacher:<br />"To those who are arguing that there are no races because there are no distinct boundaries: That problem exists in the classification of sub-species, and in fact in new species as well."<br /><br />But - this just shows you that species is just a useful concept not quite reflecting the biological reality (or reflecting it properly only outside hybrid zones and outside areas of speciation). Races, however, are not as useful as this. Populations with different characteristics of some trait/genotype, yes, but races, not quite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64352890254780220392009-10-14T10:26:53.876-04:002009-10-14T10:26:53.876-04:00Anonymous;
If a reproductive barrier is not compl...Anonymous;<br /><br /><i>If a reproductive barrier is not completed between two populations => if they are not infertile between them, they are not two different biological species.</i><br /><br />Then why are there two orangutan species? They can successfully interbreed. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrangutanThe Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84856972752592989032009-10-13T12:43:36.488-04:002009-10-13T12:43:36.488-04:00I think part of the problem here is that there are...I think part of the problem here is that there are two "ideas" floating around in this debate that are being conflated:<br /><br />1) that races are distinct and coherent sub-species groups that can be easily recognized by eye<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) that there are biological underpinnings of observed differences between individuals that are often summarized by the term 'race'.<br /><br />The former cannot really be true because, with minor exceptions of tribes in the remote amazon, all 'races' of people have had individuals that interbred with at least one member of some other 'race'. So there cannot be any long term coherence in such races. Furthermore, the within-race genetic variation is often comparable to between-race genetic variation. <br /><br />But the latter (#2) is almost certainly true. There are alleles for variants of skin colour and facial features and other anatomical features that are probably very high frequency in certain groups that are often called 'races' and low in others that are said to not be part of those races. Because of this, there is goign to be some kind of rough correspondence b/w some races and easy-to-recognize features. The question is how far you want to push the definition of race here and how much real useful biological work is it doing for you.<br /><br />By the way, the phylogenetic trees of mtDNA only characterize a very small portion of the history of humans...we have lots of genes that have different phylogenies because of recombination and syngamy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68858058975229368382009-10-13T10:36:26.712-04:002009-10-13T10:36:26.712-04:00To those who are arguing that there are no races b...To those who are arguing that there are no races because there are no distinct boundaries: That problem exists in the classification of sub-species, and in fact in new species as well. Each form is only slightly different from the one before it, therefore making a crisp boundary for "Asian" and "European" is as difficult as determining which organism was truly the first mammal; You can tell at either end of the spectrum that there are distinct enough differences for classification, but the middle of the spectrum is far messier. The issue is not that there are no races, species, etc, the issue rather is that you don't seem to grasp how classifications have to be applied in the real world.InfuriatedSciTeacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14397655567633612539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48635090915036551562009-10-12T15:12:46.418-04:002009-10-12T15:12:46.418-04:00This is the anonymous that was actually quoted in ...This is the anonymous that was actually quoted in the post. <br />My intentions were not to deny the "existence of races just because your question can't be answered precisely in the manner you phrase it?" <br />they were to explore whether the popular cultural definitions of race based on physical features such as skin colour,hair,nose, eyes have any biological basis especially when we are constantly told there is more variation within the races than between.<br />but i want to do this in a concrete way with actual examples rather than abstract groupings that would flesh out the interplay of definitions.<br /><br />i also wanted to explore the various definitions of races that people have and the evidence that support them much like what is happenning now. i am enjoying the discussions so far.<br /><br />i would also like to explore the stability of races over evolutionary time and the impacts of travel and 'race mixing' on the various races. <br /><br />i thought the best way to get those discussion going was through some real world examples of races and how they are determined (notice the if possible in the question? expounding further it means that you may have good solid reasons for you definition even if you don't have type specimen)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87387765154537169842009-10-11T11:57:34.377-04:002009-10-11T11:57:34.377-04:00"The African group from which the migrants sp..."The African group from which the migrants split is "polyphyletic""<br /><br />Jeez, larry. I suggest you get acquainted with the difference between the terms polypyletic and PARAPHYLETIC. The african group is paraphyletic, not polyphyletic.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64868743532456345072009-10-11T11:52:42.421-04:002009-10-11T11:52:42.421-04:00Larry,
Pleas accept my apologies! I am very sorr...Larry, <br /><br />Pleas accept my apologies! I am very sorry for over-reacting. I don't know what happened then. I know I posted it as I re-read it to see how many typos were made. Oh, well. Never mind. From now on, even if it happens again, it's good to know it's not you deleting. Sorry again.DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41180926051848748392009-10-11T11:02:57.251-04:002009-10-11T11:02:57.251-04:00DK asks,
So there once was a comment I made here ...DK asks,<br /><br /><i>So there once was a comment I made here that I saw being posted but that now suddenly disappeared without a trace. Larry, did you delete it???<br /><br />If you did, your censorship it's pathetic. The worst it contained was a word "stupid". And it was a pretty well qualified epithet, BTW. Sheesh, considering the frequency you yourself use it, that's just ... you know, stupid. Stupid and absolutely cowardly.<br /><br />If you really did censor it, I am quite shocked.</i><br><br>I've only ever censored two kinds of comments. <br /><br />Spam gets deleted quite regularly.<br /><br />A few (3?) highly offensive postings have been deleted over the three year history of this blog. I don't think your comment was one of them. The last time was months ago. <br /><br />Where and when did you post it?<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75627763344099719392009-10-11T10:11:57.419-04:002009-10-11T10:11:57.419-04:00To be sure, the same could also be said for 'g...<i>To be sure, the same could also be said for 'genetic differences at the group level', but the latter does not allow one easily to get away with the task of identifying the group and the distributions s/he is talking about.</i><br /><br />I agree, I think. If we insist that when people talk about "populations" there is an implicit insistence that the population be defined.<br /><br />For example, some recent papers on genetic diversity have defined the population of a village as that set of people who have at least three grandparents born in that village.<br /><br />There may still be an arbitrary component to the definition, but at least it disabuses us of the lazy notion that the definition should be "obvious".<br /><br />I'll admit that one problem I have with the concept of "race" is that it is just lazy: it demonstrates an unrigorous approach to a problem that can be approached rigorously. And intellectual rigor is one of the traits that (in my opinon) should separate scientists from IDiots.<br /><br />VVVincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008012554198066886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3503959664166538882009-10-11T09:57:01.809-04:002009-10-11T09:57:01.809-04:00The colour analogy is quite right, I think. There ...The colour analogy is quite right, I think. There is a spectrum of different colours, true, but it is impossible to define boundaries between them. Yes, everybody agrees what is red and blue, but only to a point - I often call something blue when other people call it green.<br />It is easy to 'define' races in a mixed population like this of US (analogous to sampling two colours from the middle of what most people call blue and green, for example), but since in reality the spectrum of human genotypes is continuous, there is no defined boundary between them (as there is no boundary between blue and green).<br /><br />It is much more useful in my opinion to talk about populations. Population of people with persistent expression of lactase, population with high tolerance to some drug, population with this or that allele of MR1C, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71537226935793955392009-10-10T23:35:46.627-04:002009-10-10T23:35:46.627-04:00So there once was a comment I made here that I saw...So there once was a comment I made here that I saw being posted but that now suddenly disappeared without a trace. Larry, did you delete it??? <br /><br />If you did, your censorship it's pathetic. The worst it contained was a word "stupid". And it was a pretty well qualified epithet, BTW. Sheesh, considering the frequency you yourself use it, that's just ... you know, stupid. Stupid and absolutely cowardly. <br /><br />If you really did censor it, I am quite shocked.DKnoreply@blogger.com