Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Races
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 47 of 274 (63280)
10-29-2003 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
10-19-2003 2:42 AM


quote:
In that time the gentic differences between races is still smaller than that within a given "race".
I've heard this a lot -- are there figures/quantitative reports
on this that you know of/can quote?
Not disputing it, just want to look over the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2003 2:42 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2003 10:22 AM Peter has replied
 Message 52 by DBlevins, posted 10-29-2003 7:51 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 59 of 274 (63435)
10-30-2003 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by NosyNed
10-29-2003 10:22 AM


Now I'm starting to have a problem ... need to know where
these percentiles come from.
According to the logic so far we are all chimpanzees.
Difference between human and chimp is somewhere between
1% and 5% ... which is less than variation within a
human socio-racial population -> therefore we are chimps.
...mind you, some of the people I know ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2003 10:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 60 of 274 (63441)
10-30-2003 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Mammuthus
10-30-2003 4:39 AM


quote:
Here are some references. Yes, Africa has the most diversity. According to the out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution, we originated in Africa, expanded and then migrated out to colonize the rest of the world. Though there must have been a great deal of migration in and out of Africa, the end effect is that colonized areas would show less genetic diversity than the original source population i.e. Africa should have more genetic variation among populations than say Europe for example
That's not the only explanation that fits though -- is it?
Suppose humans started off somewhere other than Africa, and some
migrated INTO Africa.
Given that it's only in the last 150 years or so, that African
populations have had wide contact with each-other and non-africans
wouldn't that cause the same effects.
Europe has a pretty invader-oriented genetic history over the
last 2000 or so years (Roman occupation for hundreds of years,
Western Eurpoeans trapsing all over the place during the
various crusades ... and trade/migration around Europe had
been extensive for hundreds of years (otherwise the black death
wouldn't have spread from the orient to consume all of Europe).
Conquerors also have a tendancy to deliberatly inter-breed with
the natives to increase their power base.
Maybe all of this has been considered in the analyses and
there are good reasons that they can be neglected ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Mammuthus, posted 10-30-2003 4:39 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 64 of 274 (63574)
10-31-2003 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Loudmouth
10-30-2003 12:10 PM


quote:
Perhaps it is a human condition to look at everyone outside of your community as outsiders or as competition, who knows.
You don't need the 'perhaps' or the 'who knows', and it's
true of all animals, not just humans. The difference is that
some humans will activily seek out those that are different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 10-30-2003 12:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 65 of 274 (63575)
10-31-2003 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
10-30-2003 8:52 AM


Just to get it out of the way so I'm not mis-interpreted
as racist -- I don't care whether there are races or not
from a political/social vewpoint.
I am concerned that legitimate features of study are shoved
to one side for political reasons.
People keep saying that there is more variation within
than between -- but no-one seems to know the original source,
and the percentages given are contextless.
If a creationist did this would you accept it?
Are the within and between comparisons on the same alleles
or DNA sequences ?
How is the difference assessed?
It's difficult not to get hung up on what some people will do
with a biological basis for race (should one be found), but is
that reason enough for not checking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2003 8:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2003 8:05 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2003 8:06 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 70 of 274 (64145)
11-03-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Wounded King
10-31-2003 8:06 AM


The averages given show the slightly more within than
between (but nowhere near as much as quoted in other
people's posts).
The numbers say 118 variations for Afr. and 78 for non-Afr
with 50 variations being common.
So Afr. populations have 68 unique variations and non-Afr
have 28 -- which means a difference of 68+28 = 96
That sounds like a genetic difference to me.
I'm not convinced about the sample selection either.
It seems to assume that Africa contains a single population
which includes Nigerians, Bantu, Zulu, etc. Considering the
geographical size, isolating factors of geogrpahy, and cultural
blocks I don't think that is reasonable.
From a limited cultural and recent historical view I would
expect to see greater variation across African sub-populations
than across European sub-populations -- with any isolated
populations showing low internal variation.
I'm not sure that this trend says anything about the existence
or otherwise of genetic-race -- especially since the studies
look at non-coding regions, which by definition have limited impact
on phenotype.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2003 8:06 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by sfs, posted 11-04-2003 3:32 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 71 of 274 (64319)
11-04-2003 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
10-29-2003 6:53 PM


quote:
Sure, but we don't call her - nor does she call herself - a white actress, do we? Nor do we call her black-white, or half-black-half-white - she's black.
Why? Because our racial terms betray an inherent bias - you can't be white unless you're all white, but all it takes is a little black to be black
In Ms. Berry's case I believe referring to her as black is more likely
a hollywood-political thing. Eddie murphy complained one
year that so few black actors got oscars, so since Ms. Berry got
one the Hollywood elite can say 'See black actors DO get oscars.'
In some areas in the UK in the 70's, a drop of 'white' blood
was enough for some 'black' people to shun mixed-race people
as 'white' -- you cannot get rid of ass-holes no matter what
'race' they may be.
We aren't talking here about skin colour, or popular definitions
of race though -- but whether or not there is a genetic basis
for 'race', and thus any biological truth to the popular
concept. It may be that it's ALL cultural, but so far I'm
not convinced. Doesn't mean I'm gonna set off on a Jihad
though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2003 6:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 73 of 274 (64684)
11-06-2003 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by sfs
11-04-2003 3:32 PM


I'm not saying that race has any useful application
potential -- just responding to the data presented as
suggesting that race doesn't exist at all.
The argument looks pretty thin to me, and that's all I'm saying.
I'm only about 1%-5% different to a chimpanzee, but 15% different
to my nieghbour -- does that make the concept of species within
primates useless ?
The studies presented as supporting the assertion look at
non-coding regions (which if they ARE non-coding) don't
contribute to the observed differences upon which cultural
race concepts are founded.
The question of whether there is a genetic-basis for race
comes down to asking are there genetically determined observable
features that are different between populations but consistent
within.
An example that springs to mind was a study in the UK to
look at the impact of the Viking incursions on the ancestry
of the British -- this was done by looking at Scandinavian
Y chromosomes and characterising areas as typically scandinavian
then looking for those in the UK population.
It was found that across northern England, and down into the Midlands
there was a high Viking influence, while in northern Scotland
and the Scotish Isles there was none.
This traces the racial origins of some of the British population
back to the Vikings.
Race is even more problematic that species though -- we don't
even have the luxury of reproductive isolation to fall back
on when we get confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by sfs, posted 11-04-2003 3:32 PM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 11-07-2003 4:34 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 75 of 274 (64877)
11-07-2003 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Wounded King
11-07-2003 4:34 AM


quote:
Your chimp example is simply you doing what you have been criticising others for doing in this thread, giving figures without any background or explanation.
Agreed, and that was the point. That's why I asked for source
materials to find out what 'difference' estimates have been
based upon.
Percentiles often sound so quantitative since they are numbers,
but often the qualitative/subjective aspects are overlooked.
Like what was the comparison for, and on.
I was simply using 15% as a stated-in-another-post within population
difference figure.
quote:
The point is to show that it does not support the popular folk conception of race which lumps a vast array of highly genetically dissimilar populations together as 'black' or african and sets another population, arguably a subset of that african variation, up as in some way superior
As I said, getting hung up on what ass-holes will do with their
limited understanding of a scientific concept is not at issue.
It has been suggested in this thread that 'race' does not exist
in a genetic/biological sense. My contention is that the
evidence presented to support this notion does not, in fact,
support that notion.
Evidence tends to indicate that there is a set of genetically
determined traits that are unique to different populations.
This means that 'race' is a genetic phenomenon.
Variation within a population is different to variation between
populations and so cannot be compared in the way that it
has been (IMO).
quote:
but I don't think that it validates the folk concept of race that there are such distinct differences.
Folk concepts of race are often (though not always) focussed
on observable difference -- if that difference is genetically
determined ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 11-07-2003 4:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by sfs, posted 11-07-2003 11:05 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 77 of 274 (65528)
11-10-2003 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by sfs
11-07-2003 11:05 PM


quote:
You used it incorrectly. There is no sense in which two humans are 15% different from each other genetically.
Don't get hung up on the figure or it's 'reality'. The point I
was trying to make was independent of the actual number used.
That being, that the logic of the interpretation of the evidence
is flawed. The two deviation figures used are not based upon
the SAME thing.
quote:
No, that means that different populations have different unique genetic characteristics (rarely -- most genetic characteristics are not unique to a population).
If two populations (however you have defined it) have different
unique genetic traits, the surely they can be characterised
by those traits.
What do you mean by a 'unique trait' in any case. Is, for
example since it seems the main issue here, skin colour
a unique trait or a common trait?
quote:
Human geneticists distinguish populations all the time, for a variety of reasons. "Race", on the other hand, covers a range of meanings, some of which map very poorly onto genetics. The thread started out with the idea of a few "pure" races which could be mixed to produce everyone.
Do you view that as not logivally possible, or as unsuported/refuted
by evidence?
quote:
You, on the other hand, cited genetic differences between Vikings and other northern Europeans as evidence for the usefulness of "race" as a concept. Those are not the same concept of race.
What makes them different?
I'm sure that Vikings viewed themselves as a distinct race,
and they were certainly viewed that way by the other peoples
of Europe. One might see a tall blonde or ginger person and
say 'That's a Viking.' -- racial characterisation based upon
a handful of common traits that are uncommon in other 'races'.
quote:
Geneticists tend to avoid the term "race" because of its multiple meanings and its heavy non-scientific baggage.
There are more reasons than that for avoiding the term, many
of which are political.
quote:
How are they different, and why can't they be compared? (And what do you mean by "population" here? Are Africans one population or many?)
Africa is a huge continent and is composed of a large number
of separate populations. Interestingly this is how Africans I have
met view it. I was speaking to a student from Africa once and asked
him if he knew another African student -- the reply was 'I don't
speak to him, he's Nigerian!'
I suppose by population I mean any group which has signifcant
interactions between individuals.
Without knowing anything about the genetics I would guess that
one might find more varaition within oranges than between
oranges and grapefruit (probably wrong -- feel free to point it
out if someone knows one way or the other). Looking at
what makes one orange different from another tells you nothing
about how different it is from a grapefruit -- they are
independent data that can say nothing about each other.
The studies presented don't even look at coding regions so say
NOTHING about a potential genetic basis for 'race'.
quote:
Then you've established a classification based on a handful of genetic traits, out of thousands. Any scheme that groups together Yoruba, San, Mbuti pygmies, Andaman Islanders and Phillipine Negritos, as racial classification usually does (they're all black or negroid), is gibberish to a geneticist.
If all you are saying is that classifying people as either
black or white is wrong -- I'd agree. The UK police have several
racial categories to aid in narrowing down suspects from
witness descriptions.
If you are saying that there is no genetic basis for a concept
of 'race' I'd say you are wrong -- or at the very least that
the supplied evidence+interpretation does not support the
contention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by sfs, posted 11-07-2003 11:05 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2003 3:39 AM Peter has replied
 Message 85 by sfs, posted 11-13-2003 11:13 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 79 of 274 (65813)
11-11-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mammuthus
11-11-2003 3:39 AM


quote:
However, oranges and grapefruit are fruits of completely different species wherease Africans are not a different species from other Homo sapiens (at least I would hope you are not suggesting this). I would therefore not expect the genetic diversity of oranges and grapefruit plants to overlap extensively whereas different populations of humans should have overlapping variation though some traits could reach a high local frequency.
I wasn't suggesting that Africans were not homo sapien, no.
What I was suggesting is that the variability within one population
bears no relation to the differences between that population and
another population.
quote:
If you can randomly sample two Africans, Chinese, aborigines, whatever and find greater differences between individuals than among populations that are geographically separated i.e. Europeans, then how do you propose to define race genetically in any meaningful way? How can such a concept be in anyway meaninful when it describes a smaller subset of the interindividual variation than exists within a population? It is a genetic concept of race that is not supported by the evidence.
First, that's not what the data in the studies posted here shows.
The sum of unique differences between 'races' is larger than the
sum of common variability for a start.
More importantly, the studies presented are looking at non-coding
regions -- doesn't that mean that those regions have no phenotypic
effect? What relevence then do they have to a concept of 'race'?
quote:
Even your Viking example does not stand up to scrutiny. All variable traits show a normal distribution of variants...so are you going to call natural variants of your Viking "race" who are short and have dark hair a different race?
But the genetic variation present on the Y chromosome WAS sufficient
to identify lineages of Viking origin, and to differentiate
them from non-Viking lineages.
...so particular 'racial' lineages CAN be identified via genetic
analysis (not external features though -- I mentioned that to
suggest that there was some limited relationship between
cultural-racial concepts and the possibility of a genetically
determined race).
quote:
How about the !Kung bushmen of Africa...they don't look like the Masai on average..yet another race?
Well, yes.
I would expect far more 'races' to exist on a continent with
a history of geographic & cultural isolation than on one
where inter-mingling and inter-breeding has been the order of the
day for over 2000 years.
quote:
human populations have not been living in complete isolation for a very long time.
Geographically, perhaps, but there are cultural barriers too.
The Japanese, for example, didn't even allow foreigners to live
amongst them until, what, the 1700's ... Any 'tribal' cultures
would tend to marry among themselves (or perceived related
tribes) (e.g. Native americans, Zulu, Bantu, various south american
tribal groups, ... probably more).
I'll stress at this point that even if there is a genetic basis
for race, I don't see any comparison between them as relevent
to the way in which we treat people -- all people are people, but
then I would argue that ALL animals deserve to be treated with
respect (yes even nylon eating bacteria ).
quote:
My mother is Spanish and my father is a mix of Welsh, German, and Russian...which "race" am I genetically?
I have no idea whether Spanish, Welsh, German and Russian are
distinct 'races' in themselves (though I suspect Welsh might be).
I'm not putting the categories up for approval, I'm saying that
to deny that different populations have genetically determined
uniqnesses is not supported by the data presented, and that where
those uniquenesses don't overlap they constitute a genetic basis
for race.
Anectdotal example -- there are certain people of whom one might
say (and often be correct) 'They look french/welsh/german/american'
I'm not just talking about black and white -- and I have no
opinion re-superiority -- but if that's why people shy away
from suggesting there is a genetic basis for race then scientific
interest goes out the window.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 11-11-2003 3:39 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 3:53 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 81 of 274 (65997)
11-12-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Mammuthus
11-12-2003 3:53 AM


quote:
I don't understand this logic at all. So if I want to find out what the genetic diversity is of a species, I should ignore populations that are separated? Which population should I sample then to determine what the variation is for the species? What is representative?
The logic is:
I have four pairs of identical shapes, each pair has one red
and one blue.
I separate them into two piles one all red, one all blue.
The variation within each group is large since each member
is a different shape.
The variation between the groups is small, the only difference
being the colour.
The colour has no useful information about the shape, and the
shape has no useful information about the colour. The two
measures of 'difference', logically, say nothing about
each other.
quote:
and it is not only non-coding DNA that is studied...here is one review
I didn't say none do -- only that the ones presented so far don't.
Non-coding regions are not useful in looking at race if they
don't contribute to racial characteristics.
That there is a correlation between disease suseptibility and
'race' in some sense, suggests there is both a genetic basis
for racial distinction and a use for it.
quote:
Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
You targetted one section of the definition as against my view
of what race is, when everything up to that point from 1-3
fits my view.
quote:
A polymorphism in the coding sequence of the SRY gene was found by single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) and direct sequencing analysis. The new allele of the SRY gene, which is raised by a C-to-T transition in the 155th codon, was found in 24% of Honshu, 35% of Okinawan, and 51% of Korean males respectively, whereas it was not observed among 16 Caucasian and 18 Negroid males
The Y Alu polymorphic (YAP) element is present in 42% of the Japanese and absent in the Taiwanese,
...which bears out my hypothesis that such a unique variability
would be found amongst the Japanese ... that they interacted
with the Koreans and Okinawans is known and shown genetically.
How does that detract from a genetic race concept?
quote:
My point is that the overlap among populations is enormous. If you look at the genetic diversity distributions of humans they overlap even if some alleles are locally at higher frequency than in other places. Geneticists, evolutionary biologists, or forensics specialists are forced to use population measures of diverstiy as opposed to race measures. Given the implication of race as a much greater genetic distance between groups (subspecies) I do not see any support for this in any study of human genetic diversity and thus find it unhelpful as a concept.
It's not the overlap your looking for though -- we're all human
so you know in advance that there is going to be significant
overlap ... it's the unique elements that one seeks.
There are genetic markers that occur in one 'race' but not
in the others.
Where we know, historically, that there has been signifcant
interaction we expect more commonality.
quote:
I am not claiming that one should ignore differences among groups and this is not the case. Why do you think those studying genetic disease look for isolated populations of people like the Amish? It makes mapping genes easier. But I would not call the Amish a race
...but the definition you cited would place the Amish as a
separate race.
Race does not mean sub-species ... not by a long stretch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 3:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 6:44 AM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 83 of 274 (66237)
11-13-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Mammuthus
11-12-2003 6:44 AM


quote:
So how is this useful biologically? The color provides no information about any other charactertic of the population so what do I use it for?
You asked for the logic -- so I boiled it down to the essence
as I see it.
The variability within each group has no impact/meaning wrt
the variability between the groups.
The colour says nothing about other characteristics -- that's the
point. It is only useful in distinguishing between groups.
They are two different subjects, and cannot be used to inform
one another.
That there is more variability within one population than between
that population and another is meaningless.
quote:
How about this, Ashkenazi jewish women have a high frequency of BRCA1 mutation and hence a higher than average chance of developing breast cancer. One can, and it has been done, study this group to identify the molecular aspects contributing to breast cancer...all without involving "race" while still ackowledging a characteristic of a specific population and its unique history.
But if I were a GP with this information I might suggest to
any member of that group that regular breast checks was imperative
(women should do it anyhow, but if you know that a group, by
virtue of their lineage, is particularly susceptible one must
place that group in a high risk bracket).
quote:
You do realize that genetic mapping involves typing neutral non-coding loci that have nothing to do with actual genes? individual, within group, within and among population differences are not measured by examining non-varying loci. What you are basically stateing here is that because population genetics is based on variable loci that may or may not have to do with a trait one is interested in, such studies are invalid.
In relation to race, yes. One looks at data relevant to the
question, not data that are irrelevent to the question.
quote:
Population separation, cultural practices etc. have a direct impact on the population genetics of the group and thus non-coding DNA is the first to exhibit such an impact and thus it is the only way to measure differences between groups.
...and when used to consider genetic race they show some evidence
for it.
Non-overlapping sequences (i.e. ones that occur in one racial
group and not others) indicate racial separations.
quote:
that you define it as "race in some sense" suggests that it is such a fuzzy concept that it is not useful.
I targetted the biological definition as opposed to the cultural since we are talking about whether or not a genetic basis for human race is valid. I exclude definition 1 since there are no breeding stocks of humans
Race IS fuzzy, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Species is
fuzzy too -- are species irrelevent/non-existent?
Race, culturally, fits the definitions 1-3 (up to taxonomy), and
this thread was talking about a link between a cultural concept
of race and biology.
Depends what you mean by 'breeding stock' too ... if you
mean managed herds, then no ... if you mean social groups
that breed within group then it IS still relevent.
Culturally one would say things like 'He's from good stock.'
so taking one, literal take on that as a meaning could be mis-leading.
quote:
Because several of the haplotypes common among Japanese are common among other Asian populations. If you had an unmarked sample of blood and typed it genetically you could not say to what "race" it came from.
You could narrow it down to a limited geographic area though.
Such things would be extremely useful in phorensics, for example.
quote:
The only differences are the frequency of known alleles as opposed to clear cut lines demarcating alleles that exist in one population and are completely absent in the others like you would expect if there were true distinct "race/subspecies" of humans.
For sub-species, maybe, but that's not my view on race.
The genetic difference between different breeds of domestic cat
must be quite small -- but you can still deliberately breed
for particular coat patterns/colours etc. so the breeds are
genetically determined.
Why is that different for humans?
quote:
But since you say race does not mean sub-species...what do you then biologically equate with race?
Genetically determined traits that are uniquely bounded within
a human sub-population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 6:44 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 11-13-2003 1:42 PM Peter has replied
 Message 87 by Mammuthus, posted 11-14-2003 3:11 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 274 (66439)
11-14-2003 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
11-13-2003 1:42 PM


quote:
The point being made here is that "race" is not very useful a tool to make judgements about any individual person.
However, it may be that there is enough statisitcaly significance to "race" related propensities to make treating a population based on that ok. That is, an advertising campaign directed at a "race" to encourage them to modify eating habits or to be screened for certain conditions that might be somewhat more prevalent in that group than others.
Not really arguing whether or not the existence of race is
useful, only whether there is a genetic basis for it.
As far as I can tell from the data posted here, there is.
In the case of the areas around Japan there are sequences that
only occur there, so the 'racial' type of the region could be
identified from DNA.
Medical usage is only one area of application -- forensic science
would be another. Being able to narrow down the suspect
list in any way would be useful when only (say) a few strands
of hair or other body cells are left at the scene (contamination
being an issue of course).
I've already said in my posts that I don't believe that there
is anything that means one should treat individuals differently
from others -- except individual's actions (e.g. where they are
anit-social/illegal).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 11-13-2003 1:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 88 of 274 (66445)
11-14-2003 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by sfs
11-13-2003 11:13 PM


quote:
The figures quoted for within vs between group genetic differences are based on exactly the same measurement -- usually the heterozygosity. So I'd still like to know what you think is different about the comparison within populations and the comparison between populations.
Same measurement, but different comparison.
A site with high variability within one group that is different
(even non-varying) in another is not directly compared, and yet
it is that data that is relevent to the question of race.
quote:
If only 1% of the members of the population have the trait, the population can be characterized by the trait. The members of the population cannot be characterized by it.
No they cannot. For a population to be characterised by a trait
then it has to be consistently present. If it is, then all
individuals within the population bear the trait ... that many
human populations are the result of millenia of interaction between
groups brings populations genetically closer together.
quote:
Since no skin color is unique to any of the kind of groups you're talking about, it would seem not to be a unique trait.
Which groups were those?
What do you mean by skin colour? (i.e. 'we all have skin that
has a colour' is different from consideration of the usual
range of skin colours exhibited within a population).
I'm NOT hooked on skin colour by the way, any trait will do.
quote:
Refuted by evidence. You cannot decompose human genetic variation into a handful of ideal types.
OK ... not entirely convinced by the evidence presented so
far. Perhaps there is some more, or an alternate interpretation
that will make this clear.
quote:
By the definition used earlier in the thread, all northern Europeans are the same race. By yours they're not. More generally, the two definitions are simply different: you mean by race any genetically distinct group, while the earlier poster meant one of a small number of basic genetic types.
The opinions expressed in this thread seemed to be saying that
there was no such thing as race at a genetic level. The data
presented, as far as I can see, shows the opposite.
quote:
Leaving aside the fact that "Viking" was actually an occupation, not an ethnic group, do you have any evidence that Vikings thought of non-Scandinavians as of another race? (Other than just assuming that they thought the same way you do.) Humans have a general tendency to dinstinguish their own group from others, but it is not at all obvious to me that they always use racial characteristics to do so.
You perhaps need to check your facts ... I'll check mine too.
Viking is the name given to the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes
around the 800-1050 AD mark -- it's not what they called
themselves -- it's what we call them now. Many Swedish
people I have met still think of themselves as Viking -- admittedly
most of the times I have heard this expressed is after a heavy
night of drinking, so ...
What do you mean by 'racial characteristics'?
There is more to race than physical appearance -- and that is
captured culturally by (for example) Zulu's enslaving Bantu and
other 'inferior' tribes, or Native American tribes whose name
for themselves means 'Human Beings' with the implication that
all outside the tribe are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by sfs, posted 11-13-2003 11:13 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 11-14-2003 7:17 AM Peter has replied
 Message 90 by sfs, posted 11-14-2003 3:44 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024