Does this study validate a biological concept of race?

[melo13]

"We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

[Arete]

No, it does nothing of the sort. It further demonstrates that hypertension is better explained by genetics than environmental factors. Human races remain clinally rather than discretely differentiated. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929709001578The study cited above samples opposing ends of a gradual spectrum.

[melo13]

No, it does nothing of the sort. It further demonstrates that hypertension is better explained by genetics than environmental factors. Human races remain clinally rather than discretely differentiated. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929709001578The study cited above samples opposing ends of a gradual spectrum.

I am aware that race is a continuum, and i know lineage isn't by any means "pure" but, aren't averages still a real thing? This may be changing the subject a little but, i am confused.

[Delta1212]

I am aware that race is a continuum, and i know lineage isn't by any means "pure" but, aren't averages still a real thing? This may be changing the subject a little but, i am confused.

Let's put it this way. If I declare brunettes and blondes to be separate races, and then sample genes associated with hair color, I will be able to group the population genetically into blonde and brunette clusters. Does this mean that blondes and brunettes as a racial classification are proven to have a genetic basis? No. Just because you can cluster people by genetic similarities doesn't mean races have a genetic basis.

 

Because people are more likely to have children with people who live close by, there are some genetic markers that you can cluster geographically, but where exactly you draw the lines between "races" based on this is just as arbitrary as basing it on hair color. Are the English a different race from Italians? Do northern Italian and southern Italian populations represent two different races? Are Native Americans the same race as East Asians?

 

You can go very broad and very narrow and still find ways to cluster people genetically. That doesn't make any of the clusters particularly more meaningful than any of the others, and which clusters we choose to define as racially significant and which not are arbitrary. Where finding a genetic basis for race is even attempted, it usually falls into the category of "I think these two populations represent different races. Let's see if I can find any genetic differences between them" which, yes, you probably can.

[melo13]

Let's put it this way. If I declare brunettes and blondes to be separate races, and then sample genes associated with hair color, I will be able to group the population genetically into blonde and brunette clusters. Does this mean that blondes and brunettes as a racial classification are proven to have a genetic basis? No. Just because you can cluster people by genetic similarities doesn't mean races have a genetic basis.

 

Because people are more likely to have children with people who live close by, there are some genetic markers that you can cluster geographically, but where exactly you draw the lines between "races" based on this is just as arbitrary as basing it on hair color. Are the English a different race from Italians? Do northern Italian and southern Italian populations represent two different races? Are Native Americans the same race as East Asians?

 

You can go very broad and very narrow and still find ways to cluster people genetically. That doesn't make any of the clusters particularly more meaningful than any of the others, and which clusters we choose to define as racially significant and which not are arbitrary. Where finding a genetic basis for race is even attempted, it usually falls into the category of "I think these two populations represent different races. Let's see if I can find any genetic differences between them" which, yes, you probably can.

that makes a lot of sense.

[overtone]

I am aware that race is a continuum, and i know lineage isn't by any means "pure" but, aren't averages still a real thing? This may be changing the subject a little but, i am confused.

Notice that all the populations were drawn from the US and Taiwan.

 

So the African Americans - who are predominantly descended from a fairly small region and a few tribes in the malarial belt of Africa, plus a large admixture of White and in some places Red genetics - would be a "race" here,

 

and something called a "Hispanic" would be another race (most Browns in the US are mixtures of southern European White and North American Red, with some of the same Black pool as the rest of the Americas)

 

and then we have an East Asian bloc (is that going to be the same race as the American Reds?).

 

You can't get an actual biological race out of that hopelessly biased sampling of the world's population. What would it be - Black but not Kenyan or San or Micronesian or Andaman Islander? Brown but not Cuban or Guatemalan? Yellow but Han (almost all Taiwanese) only, not Mongol etc?

Edited June 4, 2015 by overtone