Race.

[Xyph]

What, from a biological perspective, differentiates the various races of humans?

 

 

I've heard it said that race doesn't exist from a scientific perspective, and that there can be more genetic difference between (for example) two white men than between a white man and a black man. While I assume the latter can be true in extreme cases, generally I can't see how this sort of viewpoint makes any sense. Human races evolved in different environments, and clearly there are differences, even if they are, potentially, only external ones. Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who claim that certain races are in some way more capable than others, and while such viewpoints are almost certainly biased, I assume there could be some differences between racial mindsets. The issue seems somewhat clouded, in any case.

[tman]

I know that 99.9% of the human genome is the same for all humans. So irregardless of your race there is very little genetic variance. Obviously the differences in groups of people, color of skin, hair type, etc. are genetically based since they are apparent in subsequent generations.

I couldn't say how many of the differences in races are genetically based and whether some of these differences are based on the way you were raised. In comes the nature vs nurture debate.

[PhDP]

Apparently, from a scientific and evolutionary point of view, there's not enough differences to justify a subdivision of our species into "races";

 

Templeton, A. 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American Anthropologist 100(3):632-650.

[Martin]

What' date=' from a biological perspective, differentiates the various races of humans?

...[/quote']

 

You might like to read my post in this other race thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=210993#post210993

 

there is an article from Science magazine about

genetically determining BREEDS OF DOG that gives a

model for how one might arrive at a useful idea of

subspecies of human.

 

I am not sure that, at the present time, there is a rigorous

scientific classification of humans into subspecies or races.

 

If it is POSSIBLE to make a scientific (or at least practical and useful) classification then I think one can say with some confidence that there would be a large number of people who would be RACELESS, they just wouldnt fit any category and would fall thru the cracks

 

(this is analogous to the situation with dogs, where some dogs simply don't belong to any identifiable breed---they may be fine dogs all the same but you can't classify them----whereas other dogs can be classified according to some cluster of alleles as belonging to a definite breed)

 

If you want to talk about human subspecies then for starters you have to swear off making any value-judgements and avoid making any statements about superior inferior. Then you see if there is any clustering of characteristics (either expressed or in the genes) that makes it reasonable to do some categorizing.

[Martin]

Skye provided the correct URL for that dog article from Science journal.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=211015#post211015

 

The URL is

http://www.ohsu.edu/pmcb/current_students/documents/OstranderDomesticDog.pdf

 

the link is still good---I'd advise you to download it while you can.

 

It is really great that they were able to do this in the case of dogs.

They got a technique where they DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DOG.

 

they can tell a dog's race (if it has a well-defined race, or breed) by just looking at the dog's genes.

 

to me, it is not intuitive that one would be able to do this, even technically. But they were able to do it: simply from statistical analysis of the genes they got several categories that correspond to those in the Dogbreeders' Association Book. It didnt have to come out so neatly. they might have discovered a different bunch of dog-types NOT corresponding to the Dogbreeder Association's traditional pre-scientific notions.

[Martin]

Apparently' date=' from a scientific and evolutionary point of view, there's not enough differences to justify a subdivision of our species into "races";

[/quote']

 

Hi Phil, I see your article is from 1999.

I have something more recent, from 2004.

see what you think.

It is from the 21 May 2004 issue of Science (vol. 304, page 1160)

 

I think human geneticists and anthropologists DIFFER on the highly controversial issue of whether enough is known SO FAR to provide a useful classification of our species into subspecies. One could find articles like yours taking various sides on this issue.

 

Rather than worry about that, I prefer to take the position that it could be possible in the future to have a useful set of subspecies for humans based simply on genetic information.

 

AFAIK we don't have this at present, not enough research has been done to make it possible. Maybe someone knows of something recent, but i don't.

[Xyph]

Thanks, everyone, that's pretty much answered my question.

 

One more thing, though - if human subspecies were defined, where would it go in the name? Would "Homo sapiens caucasoid" make sense to say, for example, or would it be more like "Homo sapiens sapiens caucasoid". I assume the latter, since I'm fairly sure neaderthals are also classed as "Homo sapiens neanderthalis", but I think I've seen the former used, which seems incorrect.

[AzurePhoenix]

It would be Homo sapiens caucasoid. In modern humans, Homo is the genus, the first sapiens is the species, the second in the specific subspecies. The same taxonomic order is used in all entities. Neanderthal is classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalis by those who believe it's simply a subspecies of modern humans, while some who believe it to be an entirely separate species classify it as Homo neanderthalis.

[Xyph]

Ah, thanks.

 

...Is there a general consensus on the neanderthal issue, or is that still undecided for the most part?

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm not sure. One group will say, "it seems pretty conclusive that neanderthal should be classified as blank, and most serious scientists will agree" and then the other side will come out and say the same thing from their point of view. We're still probably a little shy of enough evidence to say anything conclusively, such as more complete samples of neander-DNA or older linking fossils.

 

Excuse me ""Homo neanderthalensis

 

edit Here's soemthing from Wiki

 

However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Still, some scientists argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species.

[PhDP]

About races,

 

Maybe subdivisions of our species is possible. However, something is certain, the old classification "White/Black/Yellow" has no meaning from the evolutionary classification we are using now.

 

About Neanderthal,

 

Here's 3 interesting articles on the subject;

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3023685.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3346455.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3431609.stm

 

Hi Phil' date=' I see your article is from 1999.

I have something more recent, from 2004.[/quote']

 

You know Martin, everyone isn't connected to "high speed internet" and everyone doesn't have fancy "modern" article starting with a 2. Anthropology isn't thermodynamics. While physicists are always changing their minds, anthropologists have built, with their mathematical skills, a very stable science.

 

Seriously, while I won't fall into Lewontin's fallacy, many studies show how little variations there is between human populations, and those variations, like Serre & Svante Pääbo pointed out, doesn't show the normal pattern of discontinuity need for a good subdivision.

[Martin]

Maybe subdivisions of our species is possible.

Yes I agree' date=' maybe it is. I find the possibility very exciting because I think it is likely to release a rich store of information about us humans and our past.

 

However, something is certain, the old classification "White/Black/Yellow" has no meaning from the evolutionary classification we are using now...

 

I agree with the spirit of your remark because think W/B/Y it is probably a naive and inadequate set of categories for the human population world-wide. I can't imagine any biologist or geneticist using the W/B/Y classification scheme globally. It doesnt begin to reflect the rich pattern of our subspecies. The scheme might have some practical application locally or regionally, in some professions. But I rather tend to suspect that invoking WBY is more often a "straw man" type of argument----confuse a scientifically-based concept of race with a simplistic WBY scheme in order to discredit the former.

 

Basically I would encourage you to say everything you like to discredit the WBY partition of world's population. I think that the scientific classification of humans by race is something quite different from that, and its validity ultimately depends on its REPEATABILITY and USEFULNESS in particular fields of science and professions.

 

Race classification is apparently not considered useful by certain anthropologists: either they say that we do NOT YET have enough information to produce a useful classification proceedure, or perhaps some anthropologists even claim that we will NEVER have adequate conceptual and biological tools for what they have in mind. Obviously those are two different positions. In any case an anthropologists can decide whatever they want, that is their business.

 

But Anthropology aside, there are other branches of science and other professions: biology, human genetics, public health, medicine, where identifying race plays a role. Here are some things I think we can find links for on the web, if there is substantial interest.

 

PUBLIC HEALTH. Race is a useful classification to use in medicine. Races are statistically real enough to have different frequencies of unfavorable reaction to medications and different incidence of various diseases. So it is considered good professional practice for a doctor to NOTE the race of a patient and perhaps order additional tests, before prescribing certain medications or giving a diagnosis.

 

BIOLOGY. Race or subspecies is a level of classification in Biology. Biologists have found it useful in describing non-human animals and plants. The concept has scientific validity based on its usefulness. Genetic maps of the world's human populations, showing frequencies of certain alleles, are being made. (I have seen a few.) Whether or not race, or subspecies, will eventually prove to be useful in human biology I consider to be an OPEN QUESTION. I do not think appealing to the authority of some anthropologists of the 1980s and 1990s is a scientifically respectable way to decide the question. I don't accuse you Phil of appealing to authority in such a way, but I have known people to do so. They talk as if the issue was settled because so-and-so (often Cavalli-Sforza is cited) said such-and-such in 1980. The prominent Prof. Cavalli-Sforza seems to have changed his view somewhat since the 1990s.

 

HUMAN GENETICS. this is a very exciting field. a lot of new stuff is turning up. the whole face of it seems to have changed since 2000, just in the past 5 years.

 

HUMAN GENETICS and HISTORY. I remember seeing an article by Cavalli-Sforza's group where they found some genetic difference in a North Iranian population which they traced back to the Macedonian invasion led by Alexander. Alexander wanted to establish Greek cities and Greek society in places like Iran and he had some of his soldiers marry local women and settle and build cities. TRACES OF ALL KINDS OF MIGRATIONS AND PREHISTORY AND EVEN RECORDED HISTORY are likely to be found in the human genetic record, as it is mapped. Like, what kinds of migrations and intermarriages produced the modern European mix of populations.

IN THE PROCESS OF DOING REGIONAL ALLELE-FREQUENCY MAPS, to find out more about our species past, geneticists are probably going to identify MAJOR ALLELE CLUSTERING which will give them handles on the classification problem.

 

Again, I suspect that the proof of the race concept is in the USEFULNESS and we will just have to see. Part of what one would have to show is REPEATABILITY. If you take someone's DNA and have several labs classify it according to some list of races, will you always get the same result. that is basic. i expect that will happen, but as far as I know it has not happened yet. If anyone is aware of some recent development along those lines please let us know.