Human Races

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, my poor education must be the issue...and while I break away from my duties as a practicing scientist to confirm your brilliance, maybe you should get out of your "armchair" and seek some knowledge yourself on the issue that you seem to hold so dear?Kaessmann H, Paabo S.
The genetical history of humans and the great apes.
J Intern Med. 2002 Jan;251(1):1-18Paabo S.
Genomics and society. The human genome and our view of ourselves.
Science. 2001 Feb 16;291(5507):1219-20Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Weiss G, Paabo S. Great ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans.
Nat Genet. 2001 Feb;27(2):155-6.Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Paabo S.
Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees.
Science. 1999 Nov 5;286(5442):1159-62.Kaessmann H, Heissig F, von Haeseler A, Paabo S. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome.
Nat Genet. 1999 May;22(1):78-81.Krings M, Salem AE, Bauer K, Geisert H, Malek AK, Chaix L, Simon C,
mtDNA analysis of Nile River Valley populations: A genetic corridor or a barrier to migration?
Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Apr;64(4):1166-76.

quote:

---

..you are both consistently condescending and evasive.

---

Was the other one of those 'both' me?When have I been condescending, and what do you consider
evasive in my responses?

quote:

---

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.

---

I have not equated race with either species or sub-species.I have specifically stated several times that I view all
humanity to be of one species, and that sub-species is a
much larger distinction than that of race. The closest biological
term in use elsewhere I have suggested is 'strain' ... and this
is the understanding of 'race' used by horticulturalists in
connection with plants.I have, in connection with inter-breeding, questioned the
relevance of the existence of multi-racial individuals by asking
if the existence of mules meant horse and donkeys where the same.The logic being used is identicle, and the large difference
between these animals exposes the error in reasoning.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have also never said that human races where diverging, or
made any comment on the future.I have said that current populations show differences suggestive
of divergence in that past. I have also said that with sufficient
inter-breeding these differences will disappear, but that does
not appear to be the current norm.Variation that correlates with geography also correlates with
race, when race is founded in geographical origin of a lineage.The level of admixture is suggestive of nothing, beyond that
populations have out-bred. It cannot be used predictively
unless we have a time series and can see a trend.If humans are BECOMING homegenous, then that means that they
aren't now.

quote:

---

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?

---

The SA article suggests that even loose racial concepts can help
in targetting drugs. Health services in the UK and US are using
self-declared ethnicity to aid in theraputic decision making
and finding this beneficial.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't know of a population where this is the case. Even on the
Indian continent it is possible to identify that as the
geographic origin, it just cannot be broken down into smaller
geographic regions in the way that the Sub-saharan Africans can
be identified from their genomes.

quote:

---

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.

---

I never said it did.What I have been objecting to is the claim that genomic data
from human populations indicates that race has no biological
reality.I still cannot see how this result has been popularised, when
the genetic data does not actually support it.My specific, main objection has been to the suggestion that
more variability within a group than between that group
and another can be used to infer a lack of 'race'.

quote:

---

Was the other one of those 'both' me?

​

When have I been condescending, and what do you consider
evasive in my responses?

---

Neither was directed at you. Both posts were responses to Too Tired and the debate which is unfortunately evolving into a petty flame war that is being largely ignored by the rest of the forum participants.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-18-2003]

quote:

---

...you are both consistently condescending and evasive...

---

Okay, Svante, you're no peach yourself, you know.I'll be back soon and we'll take it one polite question at a time.John (edited, one 'a' in 'Svante')[This message has been edited by Too Tired, 12-19-2003]

I came across this today from: http://www.felidtag.org/...s/Educational/FactSheets/puma.htm"As a result of this study, there is little reason to feel that 32 subspecies of puma exist in nature, and it is argued that wild populations should be reduced to only six phylogeographic subspecies. These six races are based on the fact that they all share a unique range, a group of phylogenetic concordant characters and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of this species."John

Mammuthus writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Here are two reasonable (if imprecise) definitions of the term 'race', from my trusty American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1985:
1.) A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 5.) Biol. a.) A plant or animal population that differs from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; subspecies.Here's a definition of race (from the December Scientific American article) that I consider to be unreasonable: "genetically discrete groups."And here's the opening sentence of the article "Subspecies and Classification" (the one that Templeton cites in his 1998 piece on race) Just a moment... "We regard species as genetically discrete (i.e., separate and independent) populational entities, whereas subspecies are taken as genetically non-discrete (confluent) populational entities. That distinction we regard as axiomatic despite arguments to the contrary (e.g., Barton and Hewitt 1985)."I wouldn't argue that H. Smith et al. who authored this paper are the final authorities on defining taxonomic terms, but as far as I can tell, their statement would be considered correct by a majority of biologists. So in the Sci Am piece we have yet another example of folks wanting to define 'race' as something akin to 'species' in order to claim that they don't exist.The subspecies definition I used in The Race FAQ is also imprecise but is much more formal in that it proposes a list of criteria that populations must meet in order to qualify. This doesn't necessarily make it a simple matter to actually decide which populations should properly be considered subspecies, but if you were on a panel or jury of biologists and were charged with making such a decision, this definition would give you some guidelines by which such a judgement could be made. My point in using it in the faq was not so much to argue that the major human races qualify as subspecies (although I believe they do, and I consider race and subspecies to be synonymous anyway), but rather to show that the population structure of species that do have subspecies is not much different from that found in humans.Now I've elaborated.

quote:

---

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.

---

The species concept is controversial to be sure, but the BSC is indeed the most common species concept and will probably remain so. If not, you'll need to inform me which one has replaced it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Race and subspecies are interchangeable; race and species, or subspecies and species, no. The fact that the terms get mixed up by scientists and lay people is confusion on their part. And then evolution gives us populations that don't always fit well into the taxonomic terms at hand; that doesn't necessarily mean that these conventional terms need to be discarded, or that they can be easily replaced by something that's going to be any better.

quote:

---

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.

---

I assume the world is getting more homogeneous, racially speaking.

quote:

---

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 a random sample of Nigerians and random sample of Europeans respond differently to a medical treatment of some sort, then who would be served by refusing to consider race as a factor in future treatments? Certainly there's variation between groups within sub-Saharan Africa, but not that much. The vast majority of Africans - West Africans and the Bantu speakers - are relatively homogeneous genetically, enough so that the Big Three race scheme may serve better than no scheme at all from a medical viewpoint.John

Hello TT,You are correct, Svante is no peach himself. I however, am not him. In any case, you conspiciously do not reference any of his or Wilson's work though both groups have published some of the most influential studies (whether correct or incorrect) on human and non-human primate molecular biology. Perhaps coincidentally because they are not advocates of "race"?

quote:

---

I wouldn't argue that H. Smith et al. who authored this paper are the final authorities on defining taxonomic terms, but as far as I can tell, their statement would be considered correct by a majority of biologists. So in the Sci Am piece we have yet another example of folks wanting to define 'race' as something akin to 'species' in order to claim that they don't exist.

---

I don't argue with Smith's definition but they are defining species as opposed to race. The Sci Am article could be looked at as yet another group that has yet another common view of race that does not fit your definition or your concept of race. However, race is an extremely maleable term. Here are several definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary...depending on which one you picked (except for the first) it would cover an enormous number of possible meanings for race.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

quote:

---

My point in using it in the faq was not so much to argue that the major human races qualify as subspecies (although I believe they do, and I consider race and subspecies to be synonymous anyway), but rather to show that the population structure of species that do have subspecies is not much different from that found in humans.

---

I understand the point of your faq. I also claimed from the beginning that it is well written and I can say it is overall interesting proposition. I also do not disagree that there is variation among and within human populations. However, I do not agree that one can simply apply a maleable concept such as race which could mean anything from what a xenophobe considers race to be to the umpteen different definitions scientists provide and expect it to serve any purpose but to make communication different biologists near impossible. Imagine if every single group working on p53 just gave it some name according to the different genes it effects in the various cell signalling pathways it is associated with? I think the appeal of a term such as phylogeographic subspecies is that it is at least conceptually more clear, has no long term history of use, no history of being used in other contexts, and is immediately applicable to non-humans. It can also be revised with ease since new catagories/races do not have to be devised as more genetic data is accumulated and associations based on morphology or other characteristics may or may not show genetic support.

quote:

---

Race and subspecies are interchangeable; race and species, or subspecies and species, no. The fact that the terms get mixed up by scientists and lay people is confusion on their part. And then evolution gives us populations that don't always fit well into the taxonomic terms at hand; that doesn't necessarily mean that these conventional terms need to be discarded, or that they can be easily replaced by something that's going to be any better.

---

Confusion on their part or not, they are the ones who have to use the terms and concepts. Scientists for the most part try to use terms that are precise, clear, and that can be communicated and understood by other scientists. Laypeople may or may not be influenced by how scientists use the terms. Just saying that it is the worlds fault for not understanding "race" as a concept is not a particularly compelling reason to keep it as a term. Merely assigning it some other taxanomic value like sub-species is not necessarily helpful but at least then one has a slightly clearer framework to operate under...you seem to be advocating that yourself in your faq so I don't see why you are so resistant to such a concept. And I would hardly consider race to be conventional in science...as in this thread, there are fairly extreme pro and anti-race categorizers in the literature.

quote:

---

If a random sample of Nigerians and random sample of Europeans respond differently to a medical treatment of some sort, then who would be served by refusing to consider race as a factor in future treatments?

---

I was actually thinking more in terms of pre planning for such an analysis. Since it is usually prohibitively expensive to do comprehensive testing of drugs during clinical phase trials, one has to pick the most relevant groups before doing the testing. I don't think that just saying european, Asian, or West African would get you the samples you need. There may be variation within populations which is far more relevant to your study and which race sweeps under an overly large and variable sized umbrella.there is also more genetic diversity in west Africa than you give creditEllis JM, Mack SJ, Leke RF, Quakyi I, Johnson AH, Hurley CK.
Diversity is demonstrated in class I HLA-A and HLA-B alleles in Cameroon, Africa: description of HLA-A*03012, *2612, *3006 and HLA-B*1403, *4016, *4703.
Tissue Antigens. 2000 Oct;56(4):291-302.Hill AV, Allsopp CE, Kwiatkowski D, Taylor TE, Yates SN, Anstey NM, Wirima JJ, Brewster DR, McMichael AJ, Molyneux ME, et al. Extensive genetic diversity in the HLA class II region of Africans, with a focally predominant allele, DRB1*1304.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Mar 15;89(6):2277-81.Tishkoff SA, Verrelli BC.
Patterns of human genetic diversity: implications for human evolutionary history and disease.
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003;4:293-340. Review.I will conclude here by saying I am sorry that our debate got as heated as it did. I don't think we will be able to convince each other that the other sides position is correct, but I am sorry that it briefly headed in the direction of a flame war and for my contribution to that aspect of the debate.cheers,
M

Just noticed this again, and read it fully ...

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

---

Where it says 'a taxonomic category (as a subspecies)', I don't think
it means race == sub-species, but that sub=species is an
example of a taxonomic category.With that in mind, this ties in with my defintion for race.There is genetic evidence for my definition.Races are NOT sub-species though.

Mammuthus writes:

quote:

---

I will conclude here by saying I am sorry that our debate got as heated as it did. I don't think we will be able to convince each other that the other sides position is correct, but I am sorry that it briefly headed in the direction of a flame war and for my contribution to that aspect of the debate.

---

Yes, same here, and I'm glad to put the hostilities behind us.

quote:

---

I don't argue with Smith's definition but they are defining species as opposed to race. The Sci Am article could be looked at as yet another group that has yet another common view of race that does not fit your definition or your concept of race.

---

My point was that the Sci Am definition of 'race' was nearly identical to Smith et al.'s definition of 'species.' Bamshad and Olson (the SciAm piece authors) are both Americans; they grew up in a place that has racial diversity and where 'race' is a common term. How did they reach adulthood thinking that blacks, whites and Orientals are different species? In fact they almost certainly didn't, so why take this term with which they are undoubtedly familiar and define it to mean something they know it doesn't mean??? It never ceases to amaze me.

quote:

---

I also do not disagree that there is variation among and within human populations. However, I do not agree that one can simply apply a maleable concept such as race which could mean anything from what a xenophobe considers race to be to the umpteen different definitions scientists provide and expect it to serve any purpose but to make communication different biologists near impossible.

---

I understand the frustration with terminology that, as you say, means different things to different people. But what can be done? The physical differences between human groups are so striking that we can't just pretend to ignore them because we don't like the conventional terms. There would have to be new terms introduced, and what are the candidates here? Geneticists are always referring to 'ethnic groups' but that's often a poor euphemism for what should really be some sort of evolutionary term. I personally think the dictionary definition of race as "a regional group that is more or less distinct by genetically transmitted physical features" hits the nail on the head. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.Gotta go. More later.John

Peter writes:

quote:

---

Where it says 'a taxonomic category (as a subspecies)', I don't think it means race == sub-species, but that sub=species is an example of a taxonomic category...Races are NOT sub-species though.

---

I agree that 'race' and 'subspecies' can be distinct terms and that when they're used this way, 'race' implies less difference. This usage isn't uncommon, for instance this is how Nei uses the terms in his 1987 text Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. On the other hand, you can go to Google and type in "taxonomic terms race subspecies" (without the quotes) and in short order find many, many references to the terms being used as synonyms. In fact, Alan Templeton introduces his 1998 paper on race with the words, "Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies.." and here I agree with him 100%.Recently I read Ronald Nowak's 1995 paper, "Another Look at Wolf Taxonomy" to see how he went about delineating the five subspecies in what is currently the most-accepted taxonomic scheme for the gray wolf in North America. He identified the subspecies mostly by skull and tooth metrics, and the differences between subspecies didn't seem all that remarkable. I don't recall that he provided any evidence of sharp boundaries between the subspecies' ranges, and according to microsatellite Fst values in a paper I cited in The Race Faq, the genetic differentiation between these wolf subspecies and the major human races is about the same. I could say the same thing about current puma (cougar) taxonomy. It's just not clear to me what the big difference is between these other polytypic species and humans.Not trying to be overly argumentative here.John[This message has been edited by Too Tired, 12-20-2003]

Fair enough, no argument necessary here.I was simply pointing out my view on the race-subspecies
question.My view is that race is less marked than sub-species in
terms of differences. That's all ... just trying to make
my position and posts more transparent.

I would like to refer to another point of view .
Something that differs from the well known Phenotype distinction .
The Civilization distinction.
1.There are races or subraces which "produce/ed" civilization.
2............................................. some or not at all C. But
they can absorb / adopt C. from the 1st category.
3.................................. never prodyced C. But they are unable
to absorb C. elements from the 1st category.
Explicitly no C. is equal to another in volume,quality and depth.
I base my opinion on the fact that speculation or standpoint is a subject
articulated with the DNA.

The distinction is pointless, meaningless, and potentially a prelude to racism. There's not a single thing you you bring up that you can't explain with biogeography.Why did Europeans seem to hit that civilization before anybody else? Because they accidentally happened to live in a part of the world with fertile soil, a long growing season, and an astronomically large number of native species condusive to domestication.Of course, the number one problem your model has is that it relies on race, which doesn't exist.

Dear crashfrog .Presuming the political deontology as science , we entrap the truth.
Races exist .But it comes as a matter of social or religious conscience to consider "Equality"
as a fundamental quality.You claim:
"The distinction is pointless, meaningless, and potentially a prelude to racism.
There's not a single thing you you bring up that you can't explain with biogeography.
Why did Europeans seem to hit that civilization before anybody else? Because they accidentally
happened to live in a part of the world with fertile soil, a long growing season, and an
astronomically large number of native species condusive to domestication."1.Do you realy know the definition of "Rasism" ?
2.Does the USA soil feed >500.000.000 people ? What was the big mystery for the American Indians
that they did not expand agriculture? If they did, what stopped them from expanding civilization ?
3.Does American Continent contain the full specrum of all climatic conditions ?
4.Is it wrong that California presents exactly the same conditions with Greece and Italy ?
5.If it`s matter of domesticated animals (animal protein) , Ancient Greeks meat consumption was in
frequency of 2-3 times/year .For philosophers, athlets and soldiers the frequency was 0.What is the Racism really?
To take a knife and kill all "strangers" (crime against humans), Or maby realisation - understanding the particularity?
The fable of equality obviously serves the "political correctness " for the survival of the interracial societies . Based on human equality.
On an "innocent" lie.

No, they don't. For instance in Brazil they did a study that tried to make connections between genetic markers and people's race.What they found was that there was no genetic marker that could definitively determine what race you were. There's simply no biological basis to the concept of "race". I don't know what "rasism" is, no. I do know what racism is, however. Well, think for a minute. Prior to the introduction of other species by white settlers, what beasts of burden did the American Indians possess?Dogs, pretty much. A dog can't pull a plow. So, no organized agriculture. You have to duck to miss the point this badly. It's not the meat. It's the work. In your case, it's perverting science to come to exactly the conclusion you want - that you're part of a superior race. That is true, isn't it? You're not a black person, are you? Hardly a lie. You've pointed out no difference between regional groups that can't be handily explained by the culture's access to domesticatable species. There's no difference between the "races", because they don't exist. If you compare the groups you identify as "races" on any number of metrics, you find that the difference between groups is less than the difference within the group.If there's no predictable inheritable marker of race, and there's no predictable consequence of race, how does it make sense to conclude that race exists?