|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Races | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I've heard this a lot -- are there figures/quantitative reportson this that you know of/can quote? Not disputing it, just want to look over the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 between1% 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 ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: That's not the only explanation that fits though -- is it? Suppose humans started off somewhere other than Africa, and somemigrated INTO Africa. Given that it's only in the last 150 years or so, that Africanpopulations 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 thelast 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 withthe natives to increase their power base. Maybe all of this has been considered in the analyses andthere are good reasons that they can be neglected ????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You don't need the 'perhaps' or the 'who knows', and it'strue of all animals, not just humans. The difference is that some humans will activily seek out those that are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 shovedto one side for political reasons. People keep saying that there is more variation withinthan 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 allelesor DNA sequences ? How is the difference assessed? It's difficult not to get hung up on what some people will dowith a biological basis for race (should one be found), but is that reason enough for not checking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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-Afrwith 50 variations being common. So Afr. populations have 68 unique variations and non-Afrhave 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 populationwhich 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 wouldexpect 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 existenceor otherwise of genetic-race -- especially since the studies look at non-coding regions, which by definition have limited impact on phenotype.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: In Ms. Berry's case I believe referring to her as black is more likelya 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' bloodwas 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 definitionsof 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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% differentto my nieghbour -- does that make the concept of species within primates useless ? The studies presented as supporting the assertion look atnon-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 racecomes 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 tolook 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 Midlandsthere 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 populationback to the Vikings. Race is even more problematic that species though -- we don'teven have the luxury of reproductive isolation to fall back on when we get confused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Agreed, and that was the point. That's why I asked for sourcematerials 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 populationdifference figure. quote: As I said, getting hung up on what ass-holes will do with theirlimited understanding of a scientific concept is not at issue. It has been suggested in this thread that 'race' does not existin 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 geneticallydetermined traits that are unique to different populations. This means that 'race' is a genetic phenomenon. Variation within a population is different to variation betweenpopulations and so cannot be compared in the way that it has been (IMO). quote: Folk concepts of race are often (though not always) focussedon observable difference -- if that difference is genetically determined ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Don't get hung up on the figure or it's 'reality'. The point Iwas trying to make was independent of the actual number used. That being, that the logic of the interpretation of the evidenceis flawed. The two deviation figures used are not based upon the SAME thing. quote: If two populations (however you have defined it) have differentunique genetic traits, the surely they can be characterised by those traits. What do you mean by a 'unique trait' in any case. Is, forexample since it seems the main issue here, skin colour a unique trait or a common trait? quote: Do you view that as not logivally possible, or as unsuported/refutedby evidence? quote: 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: There are more reasons than that for avoiding the term, manyof which are political. quote: Africa is a huge continent and is composed of a large numberof 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 signifcantinteractions between individuals. Without knowing anything about the genetics I would guess thatone 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 sayNOTHING about a potential genetic basis for 'race'. quote: If all you are saying is that classifying people as eitherblack 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 conceptof 'race' I'd say you are wrong -- or at the very least that the supplied evidence+interpretation does not support the contention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I wasn't suggesting that Africans were not homo sapien, no. What I was suggesting is that the variability within one populationbears no relation to the differences between that population and another population. quote: First, that's not what the data in the studies posted here shows. The sum of unique differences between 'races' is larger than thesum of common variability for a start. More importantly, the studies presented are looking at non-codingregions -- doesn't that mean that those regions have no phenotypic effect? What relevence then do they have to a concept of 'race'? quote: But the genetic variation present on the Y chromosome WAS sufficientto identify lineages of Viking origin, and to differentiate them from non-Viking lineages. ...so particular 'racial' lineages CAN be identified via geneticanalysis (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: Well, yes. I would expect far more 'races' to exist on a continent witha 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: Geographically, perhaps, but there are cultural barriers too. The Japanese, for example, didn't even allow foreigners to liveamongst 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 basisfor 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: I have no idea whether Spanish, Welsh, German and Russian aredistinct 'races' in themselves (though I suspect Welsh might be). I'm not putting the categories up for approval, I'm saying thatto 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 mightsay (and often be correct) 'They look french/welsh/german/american' I'm not just talking about black and white -- and I have noopinion 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The logic is: I have four pairs of identical shapes, each pair has one redand one blue. I separate them into two piles one all red, one all blue. The variation within each group is large since each memberis a different shape. The variation between the groups is small, the only differencebeing the colour. The colour has no useful information about the shape, and theshape has no useful information about the colour. The two measures of 'difference', logically, say nothing about each other. quote: 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 theydon'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: You targetted one section of the definition as against my viewof what race is, when everything up to that point from 1-3 fits my view. quote: ...which bears out my hypothesis that such a unique variabilitywould 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: It's not the overlap your looking for though -- we're all humanso 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 notin the others. Where we know, historically, that there has been signifcantinteraction we expect more commonality. quote: ...but the definition you cited would place the Amish as aseparate race. Race does not mean sub-species ... not by a long stretch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You asked for the logic -- so I boiled it down to the essenceas I see it. The variability within each group has no impact/meaning wrtthe variability between the groups. The colour says nothing about other characteristics -- that's thepoint. It is only useful in distinguishing between groups. They are two different subjects, and cannot be used to informone another. That there is more variability within one population than betweenthat population and another is meaningless. quote: But if I were a GP with this information I might suggest toany 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: In relation to race, yes. One looks at data relevant to thequestion, not data that are irrelevent to the question. quote: ...and when used to consider genetic race they show some evidencefor it. Non-overlapping sequences (i.e. ones that occur in one racialgroup and not others) indicate racial separations. quote: Race IS fuzzy, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Species isfuzzy too -- are species irrelevent/non-existent? Race, culturally, fits the definitions 1-3 (up to taxonomy), andthis thread was talking about a link between a cultural concept of race and biology. Depends what you mean by 'breeding stock' too ... if youmean 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: You could narrow it down to a limited geographic area though. Such things would be extremely useful in phorensics, for example.
quote: For sub-species, maybe, but that's not my view on race. The genetic difference between different breeds of domestic catmust 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: Genetically determined traits that are uniquely bounded withina human sub-population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Not really arguing whether or not the existence of race isuseful, 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 thatonly occur there, so the 'racial' type of the region could be identified from DNA. Medical usage is only one area of application -- forensic sciencewould 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 thereis anything that means one should treat individuals differently from others -- except individual's actions (e.g. where they are anit-social/illegal).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: 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: No they cannot. For a population to be characterised by a traitthen 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: Which groups were those? What do you mean by skin colour? (i.e. 'we all have skin thathas 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: OK ... not entirely convinced by the evidence presented sofar. Perhaps there is some more, or an alternate interpretation that will make this clear. quote: The opinions expressed in this thread seemed to be saying thatthere was no such thing as race at a genetic level. The data presented, as far as I can see, shows the opposite. quote: 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 iscaptured 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024