Is race a valid concept?

[Mikemikev]

There is no genetic divide between Africa and Eurasia. See Tishkoff et al 2009 who used 121 African population samples and 60 Eurasian population samples. What you see is a smooth genetic gradient between these two continents. Therefore racial classification is arbitrary.

Lol.

 

How about backing up your assertions with quotes or data.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

Lol.

 

 

Citation needed.

[Saxon]

If you read Tishkoff et al, there is a full list of the 121 African populations. Your plot has only about 10. If your plot included the 111 African missing populations, you would see the smooth gradient running through Africa into Eurasia. All these populations are connected via gene flow, even if only by modest amounts - so it makes no sense to argue there is genetic discontinuity.

 

The only genetic discontinuity you find in Tishkoff is with two hunter-gatherer populations, e.g. Hazda, San. This is because they are reproductively isolated. If you want to call those "races" than that is fine, but this means the races of the world are small isolated breeding populations like the Hazda, not your idea of continental races like "Caucasoids" or "Mongoloids" of billions of individuals.

[Mikemikev]

If you read Tishkoff et al, there is a full list of the 121 African populations. Your plot has only about 10. If your plot included the 111 African missing populations, you would see the smooth gradient running through Africa into Eurasia. All these populations are connected via gene flow, even if only by modest amounts - so it makes no sense to argue there is genetic discontinuity.

 

The only genetic discontinuity you find in Tishkoff is with two hunter-gatherer populations, e.g. Hazda, San. This is because they are reproductively isolated. If you want to call those "races" than that is fine, but this means the races of the world are small isolated breeding populations like the Hazda, not your idea of continental races like "Caucasoids" or "Mongoloids" of billions of individuals.

I'm not interested in your interpretation of Tishkoff because I don't trust it. Put the data here.

 

Somehow I'm guessing that when Kenyans and South Africans cluster tightly while low population density mixed Ethiopians scatter towards Caucasoid Egyptians, that other Africans will make no difference.

 

Of course I am not saying you would ever write lies.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Saxon]

There's two PCA's: global data set and African data set from Tishkoff. You've already seen these images.

 

Sub-Saharan African populations blend smoothly into Saharan (North) Africans, the latter with the closest West Eurasian populations.

 

There is no "Caucasoid"/"Negroid" divide in Africa.

 

North Africa is connected to West Asia. There is no geographical barrier; the Sinai peninsula has always been a 'corridor' between the two continents. Also the Strait of Gibraltar which separates Spain from Africa is only a short distance, it has always been crossed both directions (Vandals, Moors, etc.) The Mediterranean Sea has never been a strong barrier to gene flow.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Saxon

[Strange]

Is this a continuum?

 

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

 

 

Much of it is. The gaps could be due to a lack of samples.

[Arete]

Human variation is not a continuum.

 

The accumulation of genetic variation is an incremental process, rendering genetic diversity between organisms inherently continuous. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that 95% of human genetic variation is between individuals within populations.

[Saxon]

Reproductively isolated populations are genetically discontinuous from others. This shows in Tishkoff et al for the Hazda.

 

The problem though is that no one considers Hazda (who number less than 1000 individuals) a race, so there is a mismatch objection to calling them a race.

[Mikemikev]

The accumulation of genetic variation is an incremental process, rendering genetic diversity between organisms inherently continuous. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that 95% of human genetic variation is between individuals within populations.

 

How are you defining populations here? Can you reference your claim. Also maybe show it's different in other species.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mikemikev

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mikemikev,

Firstly, Arete defined populations some posts ago. Please go back through the thread and review the posts that have been made.

Secondly, responding to posts by simply saying "nonsense" is not productive. You are required to respond to scientific points and reubbtals to your arguments in the same scientific and rigorous manner. If you do not do this, staff will take it as you not willing to contribute positively to discussion and we will close this.

[Mikemikev]

!

Moderator Note

Mikemikev,

Firstly, Arete defined populations some posts ago. Please go back through the thread and review the posts that have been made.

Secondly, responding to posts by simply saying "nonsense" is not productive. You are required to respond to scientific points and reubbtals to your arguments in the same scientific and rigorous manner. If you do not do this, staff will take it as you not willing to contribute positively to discussion and we will close this.

Specifically how was population defined for this study.

 

Also he didn't define population. He dumped a couple of largely irrelevant links, then asked me to add "quantitative criteria" to my definition. When I asked why he was unable to explain.

First, if you're talking about genetically related groups, then generally the correct terminology would be populations, rather than races. In population genetic context, the term "races" is generally used to describe different karyotypes within a species.

 

Once you've established this, you can then use a qualitative measure of genetic distance to define populations. Rosenberg et al. Already did this.

 

This would then represent a generally widely accepted pattern of human genetic variation, which I doubt many members here would disagree with.

 

I notice you've added the second part which I missed after I turned the thread page. Genetic distance was one of my definitions, and how I inferred ancestry. How are you contradicting me?

 

It doesn't make any difference whether you call the same concept race or population. Other than to confuse the man in the street and avoid being called "racist" for mentioning race.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

I would have thought that "population" is a more useful and general term because, in many cases, these groupings are not obviously distinguished in any superficial way. For example, there was a recent study of genetics in the British Isles (1) which found a number of distinct groups or populations (or races, if you prefer). But these were all people who would identify as "white" or "British". And while some might identify as, say, "Welsh" that did not correspond to a single genetic group specific to that "race". Other examples have been given by others.

 

So why is "race" a better term? Because it suits your agenda?

 

 

(1) Leslie 2015. (2)

 

(2) What, not specific enough for you?

"The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population", Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

[Mikemikev]

 

So why is "race" a better term? Because it suits your agenda?

On the contrary. Race is the common and historical term, and its still very much in use. Attacking and muddying the concept would be part of a Marxist agenda. I only mention this because you brought it up. But I'm not sure whether referring to "my agenda" is allowed. Please confirm with a mod before continuing this line. Doubtless I'll be sanctioned for responding to personal/political attacks.

[Strange]

On the contrary. Race is the common and historical term, and its still very much in use. Attacking and muddying the concept would be part of a Marxist agenda.

 

 

I don't see it that way at all (and certainly not "Marxist" - what an odd thing to say). It is just part of the general trend of trying to improve the terminology used (in all areas of science). Just because a term has been used historically doesn't mean we must keep using it.

[Mikemikev]

 

 

I don't see it that way at all (and certainly not "Marxist" - what an odd thing to say). It is just part of the general trend of trying to improve the terminology used (in all areas of science). Just because a term has been used historically doesn't mean we must keep using it.

Actually randomly changing words for the same thing is generally frowned upon. Especially using a superset euphemism.

 

It's like calling a secret military aircraft "the vehicle" to hide what you're doing.

 

Yes, scientists still study race. But they call them "populations". That makes it "not racist" so it's ok.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Saxon]

Yet, even if race = panmictic population, you still end up with a different racial classification to what you are proposing.

 

A panmictic population would be an ethnic group.

 

"Black" and "White" are not ethnic groups.

[Strange]

Actually randomly changing words for the same thing is generally frowned upon. Especially using a superset euphemism.

 

It isn't a euphemism. It is just a better word. This happens quite regularly. For example, in a field I am more familiar with, we changed form talking about electron orbits to orbitals. I'm fairly sure that is because it is a better term, than a Marxist conspiracy.

 

 

It's like calling a secret military aircraft "the vehicle" to hide what you're doing.

 

It is more like talking about "vehicles" when drafting a policy that applies to cars, trucks, and bicycles.

 

 

Yes, scientists still study race. But they call them "populations". That makes it "not racist" so it's ok.

 

So, by your definition, the two (indistinguishable) groups of people who live on the north and south coasts of Wales are different races. And people who are lactose tolerant are a different race from those who are lactose intolerant? (Actually, that is a bit of a simplification as there are several different "races" of lactose tolerant people).

 

That sounds more likely to confuse people.

 

I suspect (based on the attitudes you display here) you prefer "race" because it is provocative and divisive.

[Saxon]

Yes good point and note you cannot find in Blumenbach, or any other 18th-19th century race theorist them calling local breeding populations such as south or north Welsh "races".

 

So the person actually changing the definition of race is Mikemikev.

 

Race was never used to describe local breeding populations. Who has ever called the Amish people a "race"?

[Mikemikev]

So, by your definition, the two (indistinguishable) groups of people who live on the north and south coasts of Wales are different races. And people who are lactose tolerant are a different race from those who are lactose intolerant? (Actually, that is a bit of a simplification as there are several different "races" of lactose tolerant people).

 

That sounds more likely to confuse people.

 

I suspect (based on the attitudes you display here) you prefer "race" because it is provocative and divisive.

I defined race by ancestry or genetic similarity. So supposed "indistinguishable" populations won't be distinguished. But that's just something you made up rather than a fact based on evidence, right? Similarly the population "lactose tolerant" isn't a race because race is a population defined by ancestry or genetic similarity. Also the population "lactose tolerant" (we jut call them lactose tolerant) is far less predictive than race, but still perfectly valid. If you want to define race as "any population" that's ok. But that isn't the historical or my use. Race is from radix meaning root or common ancestry. Your "population" is just traditional race by another name. If you just want to redefine words for no reason go ahead. Who's trying to confuse people?

 

I think Marxist pseudoscience babble and deliberate muddying and confusion, pretending not to understand and making up nonsense is what's provocative.

Yes good point and note you cannot find in Blumenbach, or any other 18th-19th century race theorist them calling local breeding populations such as south or north Welsh "races".

 

So the person actually changing the definition of race is Mikemikev.

 

Race was never used to describe local breeding populations. Who has ever called the Amish people a "race"?

You provide no support for your assertions, which are false.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

I defined race by ancestry or genetic similarity. So supposed "indistinguishable" populations won't be distinguished. But that's just something you made up rather than a fact based on evidence, right?

 

I didn't make it up (see post 112):

"The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population", Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

 

Similarly the population "lactose tolerant" isn't a race because race is a population defined by ancestry or genetic similarity.

 

So you are claiming that lactose tolerance doesn't have a genetic basis? And those who are lactose tolerance didn't get it from their ancestors?

 

If you want to define race as "any population" that's ok.

 

And that is exactly why population is a better word.

 

But that isn't the historical or my use.

 

Who cares.

 

Race is from radix meaning root or common ancestry.

 

That is an example of the etymological fallacy.

 

Your "population" is just traditional race by another name.

 

So you agree that lactose tolerant and intolerant populations are different races? (I thought you said they weren't?)

 

If you just want to redefine words for no reason go ahead.

 

I have explained the reasons. They seem eminently sensible to me.

 

I think Marxist pseudoscience babble and deliberate muddying and confusion, pretending not to understand and making up nonsense is what's provocative.

 

Why do you keep making silly comments about Marxism?

Edited June 1, 2016 by Strange

[Mikemikev]

 

I didn't make it up (see post 112):

"The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population", Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

 

Whether they distinguish at that grain of resolution doesn't make them indistinguishable.

 

So you are claiming that lactose tolerance doesn't have a genetic basis? And those who are lactose tolerance didn't get it from their ancestors?

 

Imagine this conversation.

 

"This subspecies of cat has shared ancestry inferred by genetic similarity"

 

"Can we classify them by fur color or ear size?"

 

"No, that's some other classification, not a very predictive one"

 

"So you are saying fur color and ear size are not heritable?"

 

Would you think that person was worth responding to?

[Daecon]

My pet tiger and my pet tabby are the same breed?

[Strange]

 

Whether they distinguish at that grain of resolution doesn't make them indistinguishable.

 

 

Imagine this conversation.

 

"This subspecies of cat has shared ancestry inferred by genetic similarity"

 

"Can we classify them by fur color or ear size?"

 

"No, that's some other classification, not a very predictive one"

 

"So you are saying fur color and ear size are not heritable?"

 

Would you think that person was worth responding to?

 

 

And that, again, is why "population" is a more useful concept than "race". You have again explained very well why people have moved away from an outdated term to a more useful one.

[Mikemikev]

And that, again, is why "population" is a more useful concept than "race". You have again explained very well why people have moved away from an outdated term to a more useful one.

Your assertion is a complete non sequitur and makes no sense.

[Phi for All]

I think Marxist pseudoscience babble and deliberate muddying and confusion, pretending not to understand and making up nonsense is what's provocative.

 

[

!

Moderator Note

Please stop these intellectually dishonest tactics. You brought up Marx (in a very weird way), and now you're accusing others of doing it to obstruct the discussion. Persistent use of this and other fallacies to "win" an argument are against the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

If you have a problem with our rules, Report this post but don't discuss it here.