Is race a valid concept?

[Mikemikev]

Sounds a little ... unspecific. How would you quantify these things for the purpose of a scientific analysis?

 

Why must I repeat myself? Genomic similarity is a good way. You know how they can look at DNA and infer ancestry? Genomic similarity in itself is Mayr's definition. Or self report. Visual inspection. Phenetic methods such as forensics or just visual inspection. You do understand the difference between a precise definition and a measurement error? Do you know the measurement error for genomic similarity?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mikemikev

[John Cuthber]

Can I just check on something?

When you talk of Mayr, do you mean the dead guy who doesn't believe that genes are the basis for evolution?

 

 

And where you say "Visual inspection." do you mean, essentially the colour chart idea that's so daft it got parodied on a cartoon show?

[Mikemikev]

Can I just check on something?

When you talk of Mayr, do you mean the dead guy who doesn't believe that genes are the basis for evolution?

 

Can you explain what you mean?

 

And where you say "Visual inspection." do you mean, essentially the colour chart idea that's so daft it got parodied on a cartoon show?

 

No, that would be stupid.

[Strange]

Why must I repeat myself? Genomic similarity is a good way.

But you weren't describing genomic similarity (or it didn't sound like you were).

 

 

Do you know the measurement error for genomic similarity?

 

No. Enligheten me.

[Mikemikev]

But you weren't describing genomic similarity (or it didn't sound like you were).

 

It was one of two definitions I repeated many times. It can also infer ancestry, the other.

 

No. Enligheten me.

 

Very small. More precise than measuring height. Is height an invalid concept?

[Strange]

Very small.

 

Very droll.

 

 

 

Is height an invalid concept?

 

Who said it was?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Strange

[Mikemikev]

Who said it was?

I was just wondering what you meant by unspecific. Was it just a meaningless term of disparagement?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mikemikev

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

I want to point out a few things:

 

I have hidden a number of posts that were discussing trolls. As I have said before, I'm not a fan of this tactic. Not least of which is that it has a tendency to hijack the thread, which is exactly what it did here. You can choose not to participate if that's how you feel. But if you post, discuss the science (or whatever the general subject is.

 

Now, to Mikemikev

 

I don't think I've seen a single instance in this thread of you backing up your claims with links or relevant citations. Not a good trend. I have seen you deflect inquiry (e.g. "I'll answer your trivial questions later", or explain what you don't mean rather than what you do) and claim to have given definitions when you have only provided vague descriptions, which is also not a good trend.

 

This is purportedly a science discussion. If you want this to stay open, you need to step up your game. Losing the confrontational tone ("Was it just a meaningless term of disparagement?") would help, too.

 

Do not derail this thread by responding to this modnote here.

 

[Strange]

I was just wondering what you meant by unspecific. Was it just a meaningless term of disparagement?

 

Your definition (below) just seems a little arbitrary and subjective (things like "You can split off the Japanese or whatever"). What is disparaging about that?

Africans and non-Africans split first, followed by Caucasoids, then I'm not sure whether Australoids or Native Americans split from East Asians first. So threre isn't a fixed number. It depends on the grain of analysis. You can split off the Japanese or whatever.

 

[Mikemikev]

Your definition (below) just seems a little arbitrary and subjective (things like "You can split off the Japanese or whatever"). What is disparaging about that?

 

That isn't a definition it's a result.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

I want to point out a few things:

 

I have hidden a number of posts that were discussing trolls. As I have said before, I'm not a fan of this tactic. Not least of which is that it has a tendency to hijack the thread, which is exactly what it did here. You can choose not to participate if that's how you feel. But if you post, discuss the science (or whatever the general subject is.

 

Now, to Mikemikev

 

I don't think I've seen a single instance in this thread of you backing up your claims with links or relevant citations. Not a good trend. I have seen you deflect inquiry (e.g. "I'll answer your trivial questions later", or explain what you don't mean rather than what you do) and claim to have given definitions when you have only provided vague descriptions, which is also not a good trend.

 

This is purportedly a science discussion. If you want this to stay open, you need to step up your game. Losing the confrontational tone ("Was it just a meaningless term of disparagement?") would help, too.

 

Do not derail this thread by responding to this modnote here.

 

Excuse me but I will not have you criticising me then telling me I can't respond. Any references will be provided on request. I can reference Darwin and Mayr. This was not requested so I assumed it was known and accepted. I referenced Tang 2005 on request. The definitions given were 100% precise. Explain how they were not.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mikemikev

[Strange]

That isn't a definition it's a result.

 

 

So why did you say that when I asked how you defined race? I didn't ask what the cause was.

 

I referenced Tang 2005 on request. The definitions given were 100% precise. Explain how they were not.

 

 

"Tang 2005" is not very precise at all. I tried googling but just came up with lots of seemingly irrelevant results. I did ask you to clarify but apparently you couldn't be bothered to be precise.

 

A precise reference would be, for example:

Tang, N. and Cousins, C. (2005), Working Time, Gender and Family: An East-West European Comparison. Gender, Work & Organization, 12: 527–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00287.x

Edited May 30, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

That isn't a definition it's a result.

 

Excuse me but I will not have you criticising me then telling me I can't respond.

!

Moderator Note

I said not to respond here, i.e. in the thread.

 

I hope you understand that you are not in a position to dictate what rules you will or will not follow. Don't go off-topic again.

[Saxon]

Tang et al covered ethnic groups, not "races".

 

The ethnic samples in their study were: White-Americans, African-Americans and Taiwanese.

 

If they had taken samples from ethnic Basques, Somalis and Japanese you would end up with different genetic clusters i.e.

 

Basques and White Americans are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

African-Americans and Somalis are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

Taiwanese and Japanese are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

 

This is why race (white, black, Asian) has no scientific validity. i.e. Basques and White Americans are "white", yet this whiteness has no use to genetics because these ethnic groups do not cluster together, nor do Somalis and African-Americans etc who are "black".

Edited May 31, 2016 by Saxon

[StringJunky]

Tang et al covered ethnic groups, not "races".

 

The ethnic samples in their study were: White-Americans, African-Americans and Taiwanese.

 

If they had taken samples from ethnic Basques, Somalis and Japanese you would end up with different genetic clusters i.e.

 

Basques and White Americans are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

African-Americans and Somalis are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

Taiwanese and Japanese are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

 

This is why race (white, black, Asian) has no scientific validity. i.e. Basques and White Americans are "white", yet this whiteness has no use to genetics because these ethnic groups do not cluster together, nor do Somalis and African-Americans etc who are "black".

Interesting, can you point me to any literature about it?

[Arete]

To be fair though, in the long run it would make more sense to directly test for genetic markers, rather than using ethnicity as a proxy (assuming they are known, of course).

 

Yes, but you don't do it like this

 

 

Absolutely, I agree. I was simply proposing that we don't throw the baby out with the racist water.

 

Human genetic clustering can be useful to determine predisposition to certain genetically underlain diseases and predispositions. Thus acknowledging that humans fall into distinct genetic clusters can be useful.

 

However these clusters are inherently blurry and useless to determine someone's likely IQ, propensity to violence or crime, or any other distortion of the factual information to fit a particular agenda.

 

 

I posted Darwin's and Mayr's definitions.

 

Then you're only around 80 years out of date.

 

For more modern interpretations I would look into the evolutionary species concept

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/879.full

 

and evolutionary/ecological population paradigms.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x/full

[Saxon]

Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) is still used as a standard reference text on human population genetics. Its useful as an introduction to the topic.

 

Sforza explains why there are human panmictic populations (i.e. ethnic groups) but not races. It's on google books, check pages 19-21.

 

If Tang et al took many more samples across the globe, what they would find is there is no genetic clustering at the continental level, so no such thing as race. Taiwanese for example do not cluster with Japanese.

 

Denying race does not mean denying different human populations exist. Although racialists love to set up that straw man.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Saxon

[StringJunky]

Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) is still used as a standard reference text on human population genetics. Its useful as an introduction to the topic.

 

Sforza explains why there are human panmictic populations (i.e. ethnic groups) but not races. It's on google books, check pages 19-21.

 

If Tang et al took many more samples across the globe, what they would find is there is no genetic clustering at the continental level, so no such thing as race. Taiwanese for example do not cluster with Japanese.

 

Denying race does not mean denying different human populations exist. Although racialists love to set up that straw man.

Thank you. +1

[ajb]

Because, why?

I think is has all been answered ... it seems very difficult if not impossible to give a clear and 100% effective definition of a race. It has also been stated that having a scientific definition of a race could be useful, for example in diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. However, all attempts at a clear defition of race fail at some level. The groupings are not always clear, these groupings are not multually exclusive and so on.

 

But we still have a general notion of race, which is mostly based on skin colour and geographical location of recent ancestors. However you want to dress that up, it is basically putting people into groups based on what they look like.

 

This construct has massive social, educational and economic implications. But how much of it is really biology?

 

Why must I repeat myself? Genomic similarity is a good way. You know how they can look at DNA and infer ancestry?

You can look at the 'flow of genes' and human movement ... but this seems not enough to define race.

Edited May 31, 2016 by ajb

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Saxon / Rune / Spartan / whoever else,

Stop making multiple accounts on this forum for the singular purpose of refuting Mikemikev, and making posts about his history elsewhere. Staff are aware of his history (which is irrelevant to what we do at SFN anyway), and sock puppetry is prohibited.

[John Cuthber]

 

Can you explain what you mean?

 

 

No, that would be stupid.

I mean are you talking about this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr

the reason I ask is that - he's old- to the point of being dead- and some of his ideas might (like Darwin's) be thought of as superseded.

For example, according to WIKI "Mayr rejected the idea of a gene-centered view of evolution "

Now there are problems with taking that point of view- we know that some genes are involved, directly, in our evolution.

Also, if it's the genome as a whole that is responsible, then small scale traits like skin colour can't be important.

So, as your definition, you have chosen that defined by someone who doesn't believe that your apparent viewpoint (that races are meaningful) makes sense.

 

And I'm glad you think it's stupid to use a chart of skin colour to determine "race", but you did say "Visual inspection".

What did you mean by that?

[Ophiolite]

I mean are you talking about this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr

the reason I ask is that - he's old- to the point of being dead- and some of his ideas might (like Darwin's) be thought of as superseded.

For example, according to WIKI "Mayr rejected the idea of a gene-centered view of evolution "

1. Mayr was one of the creators of the Modern Synthesis. Referring to him, as you did in an earlier post, as "the dead guy who doesn't believe that genes are the basis for evolution?" is both misleading and offensive.

 

2. Anyone who disagrees with Dawkins has my vote.

 

3. I am not back, but could not let this pass unremarked.

[CharonY]

I find it funny that in this thread Mayr is taken as a point of contention, considering that he had a very careful view regarding race which actually echo the posts from quite a few posters here.

To him, geographic units are the main defining point, with a geographically isolated population and defined populations. However, he continues by stating that a) there is large variation within population and that b) humans specifically are usually not that confined. As such he has always emphasized that individuals have to be evaluated and judged and not races. I will quote here from one of his assays published by the AAAS

 

 

One must treat each individual on the basis of his or her own unique abilities, and not on the basis of the group's mean value.

 

That has been the center on many of his essays and letters regarding race and his opinion on the IQ gap. I.e. he always emphasized the individual experience and the difficulty distinguishing environmental factors pertaining to a complex trait.

Another quote:

 

Some of these characteristics are virtually diagnostic, but most are merely quantitative, like the description of the human races in older anthropology textbooks describing skin color, hair, eye color, body size, etc. An ensemble of such characteristics usually permits classifying an individual in the relevant race. All these characteristics are nevertheless highly variable, and it is virtually impossible to classify every individual definitively, especially in those areas where one geographic race merges into another (as is true, for example, for the human population of modern-day America).

 

He also strongly rejects the notion of any kind of superiority as meaningless

 

 

Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes. But when it comes to the capacities that are required for the optimal functioning of our society, I am sure that the performance of any individual in any racial group can be matched by that of some individual in another racial group. This is what a population analysis reveals.

 

The main contention that I have, is that outside of studies "race" is often applied in a 19th century meaning with being invariant and defining. Whereas in Mayr's essays we can see a much more modern and fluid concept based on our knowledge of genetics.

[Mikemikev]

Then you're only around 80 years out of date.

 

No I don't think so.

 

 

For more modern interpretations I would look into the evolutionary species concept

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/879.full

 

and evolutionary/ecological population paradigms.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x/full

 

Thanks for the links. You know I get criticized for making point without references. But its better than providing references without making a point. Could you summarize how this supersedes earlier concepts?

I think is has all been answered ... it seems very difficult if not impossible to give a clear and 100% effective definition of a race.

 

What does this even mean? I defined race by ancestry. Can you explain why it is not 100% effective? What does that mean? Can subspecies or genus be 100% effective? Can anything? What does it mean to be effective in this context?

 

It has also been stated that having a scientific definition of a race could be useful, for example in diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. However, all attempts at a clear defition of race fail at some level. The groupings are not always clear, these groupings are not multually exclusive and so on.

 

So all concepts in science must always give predictions with absolute certainty with perfect mapping between definition and measurement? Are you just setting up absurd standards that would have you laughed out of the room for any other subject?

 

But we still have a general notion of race, which is mostly based on skin colour and geographical location of recent ancestors. However you want to dress that up, it is basically putting people into groups based on what they look like.

 

This construct has massive social, educational and economic implications. But how much of it is really biology?

 

 

You can look at the 'flow of genes' and human movement ... but this seems not enough to define race.

 

Classifying by descent isn't biology now?

[Arete]

No I don't think so.

 

Then you are misinformed. As the previously linked De Quieroz paper documents, there is a substantial body of work since Mayr on species concepts and species delimitation. Mayr was the godfather of the Modern synthesis, however the modern synthesis has changed over time to account for more recently discovered evolutionary processes such as lateral gene transfer, recombination, etc.

 

 

But its better than providing references without making a point.

 

 

I would have thought the point was fairly obvious - the original concepts of species/populations as described by Mayr and Darwin have been updated in the light of new evidence.

 

The evolutionary species concept defines a species as a metapopulation of organisms with a shared, discernible evolutionary trajectory - meaning that the methods of delimitation (e.g. reproductive isolation, genetic distance, phenotypic characters) can be varied and simply substantiate the evolutionary distinction of the species.

 

The ecological/evolutionary population paradigm defines populations as groups of individuals that can be shown to be genetically distinct using particular migration parameters and discrete allele frequencies - meaning one can use objective, quantitative measures to define populations.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Arete

[Mikemikev]

Tang et al covered ethnic groups, not "races".

 

The ethnic samples in their study were: White-Americans, African-Americans and Taiwanese.

 

If they had taken samples from ethnic Basques, Somalis and Japanese you would end up with different genetic clusters i.e.

 

Basques and White Americans are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

African-Americans and Somalis are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

Taiwanese and Japanese are not a genetic cluster, but separate.

 

This is why race (white, black, Asian) has no scientific validity. i.e. Basques and White Americans are "white", yet this whiteness has no use to genetics because these ethnic groups do not cluster together, nor do Somalis and African-Americans etc who are "black".

 

Tang used 18 SIRE ethnic groups which clustered into 4 major races under genetic analysis.

 

The poster above fails to understand hierarchical taxonomy, ie. subclusters in superclusters.

Then you are misinformed. As the previously linked De Quieroz paper documents, there is a substantial body of work since Mayr on species concepts and species delimitation. Mayr was the godfather of the Modern synthesis, however the modern synthesis has changed over time to account for more recently discovered evolutionary processes such as lateral gene transfer, recombination, etc.

 

I would have thought the point was fairly obvious - the original concepts of species/populations as described by Mayr and Darwin have been updated in the light of new evidence.

 

The evolutionary species concept defines a species as a metapopulation of organisms with a shared, discernible evolutionary trajectory - meaning that the methods of delimitation (e.g. reproductive isolation, genetic distance, phenotypic characters) can be varied and simply substantiate the evolutionary distinction of the species.

 

The ecological/evolutionary population paradigm defines populations as groups of individuals that can be shown to be genetically distinct using particular migration parameters and discrete allele frequencies - meaning one can use objective, quantitative measures to define populations.

 

Great. Can you show how race according my definition fails this?