Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Races
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 166 of 274 (72665)
12-13-2003 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Too Tired
12-13-2003 1:35 AM


Race and Skin Color
I will confess to having given up following this thread awhile ago. However I thought a small article in the "American Scientist" might be interesting to the participants.
This is from the Nov-Dec 2003 Issue:
"Black" and "White" Not Quite Right
It is a study of the genetics of Brazilians who are a mix of Portuguese and Africans. They grouped individuals into 'black', 'white' or 'intermediate' based on skin color.
Some excerpts:
"In samples from both urban centers and rural districts, the distribution of African alleles was the same for the "black" and "intermediate" Brazilians: Both groups' average AA1 values fell between the European and African ends of the spectrum.
and
"The white Brazilians also showed a high proportion of African allelic markers, although the distribution was not as pronounced as in the black and intermediate groups. The reason for this became apparent when the identity of the markers was considered---the OCA2 gene, part of the test battery, encodes a protein that regulates pigment production, meaning that the marker itself contributed to the phenotype. When this site was excluded from the AA1 calculation, there were no significant differences in the African genomic ancestry of black and white study participants."
Since I think we started off with a general idea of race, which to most people is associated with skin color other characteristics, I think this helps point out that race doesn't even guarentee a correlation with color.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Too Tired, posted 12-13-2003 1:35 AM Too Tired has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Too Tired, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 168 by Peter, posted 12-15-2003 5:50 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Too Tired
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 274 (72792)
12-14-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by NosyNed
12-13-2003 10:09 AM


Re: Race and Skin Color
quote:
Since I think we started off with a general idea of race, which to most people is associated with skin color other characteristics, I think this helps point out that race doesn't even guarentee a correlation with color.
We'll certainly have to talk differently about race if the degree of racial admixture found in Brazil ever becomes the norm in the rest of the world.
Thanks for bringing the Scientific American issue on race to our attention.
John

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 10:09 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 9:42 AM Too Tired has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 168 of 274 (72920)
12-15-2003 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by NosyNed
12-13-2003 10:09 AM


Re: Race and Skin Color
quote:
The reason for this became apparent when the identity of the markers was considered---the OCA2 gene, part of the test battery, encodes a protein that regulates pigment production, meaning that the marker itself contributed to the phenotype. When this site was excluded from the AA1 calculation, there were no significant differences in the African genomic ancestry of black and white study participants
So, if you exclude all the bits that make us different
we are the same ...
Black and white is too broad, but the above says that the
difference has to be specifically excluded. If there is
significant inter-breeding for a number of generations why expect
there to be clear distinctions left. This is not the
global norm.
Added by edit (so as not to do another post):
Won't Portuguse have 'African' ancestry even in
portugal too? Certainly in the southern parts, where
the Moors held sway for some considerable time ...
doesn't that history conflate matters?
There is also mention of 'African allellic markers', and
of Brazilian people falling between the European and African
AA1 values.
Doesn't that mean that there are races, otherwise one could not
speak of allelic markers.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 12-15-2003]
[This message has been edited by Peter, 12-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 10:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 169 of 274 (72921)
12-15-2003 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Too Tired
12-13-2003 1:35 AM


quote:
So, slightly differently from how you've characterized Peter's take on genetics, I'd say that the evidence *against* human races is *not* found in genetic data
That's more or less what I HAVE been saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Too Tired, posted 12-13-2003 1:35 AM Too Tired has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 170 of 274 (72922)
12-15-2003 6:11 AM


Haven't read most of the thread; probably won't. Just thought I'd mention, since it is perhaps relevant to what has been discussed.
There's a good article in the latest Scientific American about this; those interested might want to read it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Peter, posted 12-16-2003 10:51 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 171 of 274 (72940)
12-15-2003 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Too Tired
12-14-2003 12:34 AM


Race and Skin Color
We'll certainly have to talk differently about race if the degree of racial admixture found in Brazil ever becomes the norm in the rest of the world.
Perhaps the result is already there. I've seen one picture of "africans" that shows a very wide range of skin color. Maybe we started off with a limited connection between skin color and genetic makeup. The separation since then has allowed for more separation of the genetics.
It all comes down to showing that the common or original idea of "race" doesn't mean what we thought it did.
------------------
Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Too Tired, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM Too Tired has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Too Tired, posted 12-15-2003 11:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Too Tired
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 274 (73220)
12-15-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by NosyNed
12-15-2003 9:42 AM


Re: Race and Skin Color
quote:
Perhaps the result is already there. I've seen one picture of "africans" that shows a very wide range of skin color. Maybe we started off with a limited connection between skin color and genetic makeup. The separation since then has allowed for more separation of the genetics.
In any case, racial admixture in Brazil is much more advanced than in the US.
Parra et al. 2003 in PNAS Just a moment... estimated the proportion of African admixture in rural "whites," "intermediates" and "blacks" as 31-32%, 45-48% and 51-52% respectively.
An earlier article by Parra et al. in AJHG, p1839 here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/...rnal/contents/v63n6.html
sampled 9 major US cities and found an average of about 17% European admixture in blacks (i.e., ~83% African ancestry) and only about 1% African admixture in whites in a sample of three cities.
I don't have any handy references but it's a reasonable guess that admixture of the major races is negligible or nearly so in much of East Asia, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa.
John

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 9:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 173 of 274 (73321)
12-16-2003 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Jack
12-15-2003 6:11 AM


Thanks, I'll take a look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 6:11 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 174 of 274 (73674)
12-17-2003 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Too Tired
12-13-2003 1:35 AM


quote:
My stance in this debate is that the racial division of humans is the default position, the status quo, and that the campaigners against human races have to convince us otherwise. So, slightly differently from how you've characterized Peter's take on genetics, I'd say that the evidence *against* human races is *not* found in genetic data. On the other hand, knowing as we do that human groups are interfertile and knowing what the population genetics of other subdivided species look like, I wouldn't argue much with Peter's assessment.
This is almost like a creationist argument. Rather than answer the question, you claim the burden is on me because it contradicts your opinion. Your working definition of subspecies which you equate with "race" is idiosyncratic and can hardly be equated with a common view of "race". But since neither you nor Peter seem willing to state what this commonly accepted definition of race among the billions of humans on the planet that rubes such as sfs and myself seem to have missed there does not seem to be much point in continuing.
quote:
I would agree that sub-Saharan Africans comprise a major human race (and therefore, technically, a subspecies).
Base on what? Why not species then? Or genus? Since the defnintions you have proposed and what you have written in your faq are so arbitrary one could give a single base change in cytochrome b between two individuals any taxanomic value one wishes.
quote:
Like I said, it's always about definitions. The vast majority of people in the world who have had any amount of exposure to racial diversity probably have a very adequate sense of what race means.
This is rather vague...what "race" is Colin Powell? Actually, my mother is spanish. My father American. On my mother's side there is moorish influence. My father is a mixture of Russian jew, German jew, and non-descript Welsh. What major "race" group am I...according to you I should instantly be able to identify my race in such a way that everyone else does...which sub-species am I?
quote:
There's any number of concepts that we deal with all the time that aren't and can't be precisely defined - it makes no difference.
I would say it makes quite a bit of difference since you are claiming it as a precise biological concept that everyone should accept blindly and without question yet at the same time admit it is so arbitrary that anyone can define the concept as they choose...how useful is that?
quote:
All this agonizing over how race is defined just doesn't ring true, especially when it comes from those who haven't figured out how the term is used in non-human taxonomy.
Ah yes, good debating tactic...claim that the opposition is ignorant and has yet to recognize your brilliance. Fine, you find the consensus agreement on what species are among evolutionary biologists...I am sure you will define it as whatever you think it is...however, in reality species as a concept is also highly controversial and debated...and it does matter for a variety of reasons including how conservation efforts are focused...this thread shows race is an order of magnitude worse...Feel free to ignore it or dismiss it with another vague statement.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-17-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Too Tired, posted 12-13-2003 1:35 AM Too Tired has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Peter, posted 12-17-2003 6:58 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 178 by Too Tired, posted 12-17-2003 3:07 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 175 of 274 (73682)
12-17-2003 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Mammuthus
12-17-2003 5:38 AM


quote:
But since neither you nor Peter seem willing to state what this commonly accepted definition of race among the billions of humans on the planet ...
I thought I had ... I suggest that commonly held view on race
ultimately correlate to geographical ancestry.
I've just read the Scientific American article mentioned too,
and there are results there that found that Alu's can be used
to make genetic groupings that correspond precisely with
conintent of origin.
With 60 Alus one can get a high correlation, using 100 Alus
one can get 'almost 100%' correlation.
The experiment correctly grouped Sub-saharan africans, Europenas
and East Asians by genetic means alone.
It is also reported that investigations have concluded that
African-Americans have 20-100% West-African origins ... so there's
your answer about dealing with inter-breeding .. i.e. you
can still find the markers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 5:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 7:56 AM Peter has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 176 of 274 (73688)
12-17-2003 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Peter
12-17-2003 6:58 AM


quote:
It is also reported that investigations have concluded that
African-Americans have 20-100% West-African origins ... so there's
your answer about dealing with inter-breeding .. i.e. you
can still find the markers.
This does not deal with interbreeding...if you have 20% West African, you have 80% something else...what "race" are you? Then you switch within the post from clear sub-saharan African to West African. Many of these "interbred" people have themselves had children who are even more mixed in ancestry i.e. from people of different geographical origin. If you have alleles that are a mix from multiple different populations, you will not be able to identify the "race" of the individual. Within geographical groups the mixing will form a normal distribution with those living in proximity more closely related...so which alleles do you pick as "sub-saharan"?
I did not mean to completely lump you together with Too Tired as your reasons for not having defined "race" are different. I think you yourself are not entirely sure where to draw the line. Too Tired thinks that race is self evident, that billions of people agree with anything he says, that quoting Steve O'Brien is evidence, and that anyone who disagrees is stupid. I do not consider your arguments or reasoning to be equivalent...just that niether of you has given a clear definition of what "race" means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Peter, posted 12-17-2003 6:58 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Peter, posted 12-17-2003 11:30 AM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 179 by Too Tired, posted 12-17-2003 3:17 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 177 of 274 (73747)
12-17-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Mammuthus
12-17-2003 7:56 AM


quote:
This does not deal with interbreeding...if you have 20% West African, you have 80% something else...what "race" are you? Then you switch within the post from clear sub-saharan African to West African
The switch is just in reference to the SA article. That's what
the author there reports.
The fact that they can say that someone is 20% West African
suggests that the level of inter-breeding is interpretable up to
a point.
Apparently it is harder to differentiate between populations from
the Indian continent, due to extreme inter/out-breeding.
I agree, logically, that with sufficient levels of inter-breeding
then racial distinctions will disappear. I don't believe this
to be a global norm at this stage, however.
The succesful identification of 'racial' group from genetic
grouping suggests a biological basis for race ... but I concede
that that is one based upon a 'geographic origin' interpretation
of race. I believe that this is ultimately where all racial
distinctions are founded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 7:56 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Too Tired
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 274 (73805)
12-17-2003 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Mammuthus
12-17-2003 5:38 AM


Re: Race and Skin Color
Mammathus writes:
quote:
Rather than answer the question, you claim the burden is on me because it contradicts your opinion.
No, the burden is on you because the division of humanity into geographical races has been recognized for hundreds of years.
quote:
Your working definition of subspecies which you equate with race is idiosyncratic
How so? Please elaborate.
quote:
and can hardly be equated with a common view of race. But since neither you nor Peter seem willing to state what this commonly accepted definition of race among the billions of humans on the planet that rubes such as sfs and myself seem to have missed there does not seem to be much point in continuing.
Since you've compared the common view of race to the subspecies definition and found them to differ, you imply that you can define this common view of race for us. Why don't you go ahead and give it to us, since Peter and I can't seem to please you with our sorry attempts? Just look it up in the dictionary if that helps. I am really quite curious to know how you define 'race' such that human populations don't qualify.
quote:
Base on what? Why not species then? Or genus? Since the defnintions you have proposed and what you have written in your faq are so arbitrary one could give a single base change in cytochrome b between two individuals any taxanomic value one wishes.
Based on what I understand to be a reasonable definition of the term race or subspecies. I wouldn't consider sub-Saharan Africans to be a different species because they don't meet the criteria of the biological species concept, which I take to be the most common species concept among biologists at the present. Why do you want to argue this with me? Why don't you argue it with someone who believes in different human species? Or are you really incapable of drawing distinctions between these taxonomic categories?
quote:
What major race group am I...according to you I should instantly be able to identify my race in such a way that everyone else does...which sub-species am I?
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, but in terms of the major races I'd say you're Caucasian.
quote:
I would say it makes quite a bit of difference since you are claiming it as a precise biological concept that everyone should accept blindly and without question yet at the same time admit it is so arbitrary that anyone can define the concept as they choose...
Again your reading comprehension seems lacking. Please identify in which post or posts I claimed any of these things.
quote:
Ah yes, good debating tactic...claim that the opposition is ignorant and has yet to recognize your brilliance. Fine, you find the consensus agreement on what species are among evolutionary biologists...I am sure you will define it as whatever you think it is...however, in reality species as a concept is also highly controversial and debated...and it does matter for a variety of reasons including how conservation efforts are focused...this thread shows race is an order of magnitude worse...Feel free to ignore it or dismiss it with another vague statement.
My favorite debating tactic is to keep the issue as simple as possible. My point in this debate can be summarized as follows: the differences between major human populations (those we commonly refer to as major 'races') are not substantively different from the differences between the subspecies of other mammal species. Therefore, to claim that human races don't exist requires that we define race to be more like 'species' than 'subspecies' (which in my opinion is hard to justify.)
Now, you can alternatively argue that we shouldn't refer to human populations as races because the concept of race (or subspecies) has too many shortcomings, but that's distinct from arguing that human groups aren't races because they wouldn't qualify as subspecies. I don't think I've come across anyone yet who agrees that if humans were any other species they would have subspecies, and yet argues for abandoning the term race due to its looseness.
John

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 5:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Mammuthus, posted 12-18-2003 3:36 AM Too Tired has replied

  
Too Tired
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 274 (73807)
12-17-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Mammuthus
12-17-2003 7:56 AM


Re: Race and Skin Color
Mammuthus writes:
quote:
This does not deal with interbreeding...if you have 20% West African, you have 80% something else...what race are you? Then you switch within the post from clear sub-saharan African to West African. Many of these interbred people have themselves had children who are even more mixed in ancestry i.e. from people of different geographical origin.
Admixture is a simple concept. If races didn't mix when they meet, they wouldn't be different races, they'd be different species. To claim that admixture somehow nullifies the reality of different races is to ignore what it really tells us, which is that the parent groups are indeed conspecific.
quote:
Too Tired thinks that race is self evident, that billions of people agree with anything he says, that quoting Steve O’Brien is evidence, and that anyone who disagrees is stupid. I do not consider your arguments or reasoning to be equivalent...just that niether of you has given a clear definition of what race means.
In many contexts race IS self-evident. It certainly was evident long before population genetics came along since it doesn't take any special training or ability to recognize consistent differences in hair form, hair color, skin color, facial traits, etc. between different geographical groups. As for these other silly claims, show me where I've said any of them. If you're so ill-equipped to argue your case that you have to resort to this sort of thing, maybe you should give it up until you've had a chance to educate yourself.
John

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 7:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Mammuthus, posted 12-18-2003 4:50 AM Too Tired has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 180 of 274 (73997)
12-18-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Too Tired
12-17-2003 3:07 PM


Re: Race and Skin Color
This conversation is becoming highly uninteresting as you are both consistently condescending and evasive. Hopefully this will change..if not, no loss for me either.
quote:
Based on what I understand to be a reasonable definition of the term race or subspecies. I wouldn't consider sub-Saharan Africans to be a different species because they don't meet the criteria of the biological species concept, which I take to be the most common species concept among biologists at the present. Why do you want to argue this with me? Why don't you argue it with someone who believes in different human species? Or are you really incapable of drawing distinctions between these taxonomic categories?
Please then elaborate on what you understand to be a "reasonable" definition of the term race. I have asked you several times. Summarize your faq because even there it is not clear. I would not say the biological species concept is necessarily the most common and given it is itself hotly debated, I doubt you could form a consensus among scientists. So yes, I am incapable of drawing subspecies, species, race distinctions because I have seen EVERY one of those terms used interchangebly by you, by Peter, and in the scientific and lay literature.
quote:
My favorite debating tactic is to keep the issue as simple as possible. My point in this debate can be summarized as follows: the differences between major human populations (those we commonly refer to as major 'races') are not substantively different from the differences between the subspecies of other mammal species. Therefore, to claim that human races don't exist requires that we define race to be more like 'species' than 'subspecies' (which in my opinion is hard to justify.)
I don't see how you make the logical leap that if one does not accept "race" (however one defines it) one must instantly jump to a higher taxanomic division. In fact, almost everyone except for you and Peter has argued exactly the opposite. While there may be variation that correlates with geography, the level of admixture among human populations suggests exactly the opposite of growing differentiation among groups but of homogenization.
quote:
Now, you can alternatively argue that we shouldn't refer to human populations as races because the concept of race (or subspecies) has too many shortcomings, but that's distinct from arguing that human groups aren't races because they wouldn't qualify as subspecies. I don't think I've come across anyone yet who agrees that if humans were any other species they would have subspecies, and yet argues for abandoning the term race due to its looseness.
Now this is the most interesting part of your post. The looseness of race is an issue. It is more variably defined than species or even sub-specis. I have not seen even here a consistent formulation of the concept either on the pro or con side. If a drug developer wishes to test a new product in clinical trials, is claiming that sub-saharans form a distinct group a true biological guide to the efficacy of the drugs? Does a loose concept of race help in any way? If the geographical distance does not correlate with the genetics of a group due to historical migration , invasion and other sources of admixture, then what? Though it is at some level a semantics issue, using historical terms that have multiple connotations is does not simplify biological study for those of us who are actually in the field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Too Tired, posted 12-17-2003 3:07 PM Too Tired has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Peter, posted 12-18-2003 7:39 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 184 by Too Tired, posted 12-18-2003 2:56 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 185 by Too Tired, posted 12-18-2003 6:33 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 186 by Too Tired, posted 12-19-2003 1:05 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024