-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Leading scientists, including evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists, can’t agree on the existence of human races, and it’s a fascinating discussion. The human desire to categorize everything is often puzzling, sometimes amusing, and sometimes enlightening. Race is one of the results of our categorization compulsion applied to ourselves.
To define race, Jerry Coyne turns to our experience with animals: “races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated).” While humans from Norway and from sub-Saharan Africa are certainly “morphologically distinguishable,” for example in skin pigment, eye and hair color, and nose shape, there is a continuous distribution on morphology between the geographic extremes.
As can be seen from the graph above, from Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective (pdf) by Alan R. Templeton, genetic distance and geographical distance form a cline and not discrete changes that would indicate races. It is possible to cherry-pick the genetic information from geographically distance populations and produce a graph that clusters those populations and claim it manifests discrete races. However, this ignores the in-between genetic information that smears the discrete clustering into a homogeneous mix.
Templeton concludes:
Hence, human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation. A more modem definition of race is that of a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans.
From Genetics, Evolution, and Man, L.L. Cavalli-Sforza wrote:
The criteria for the definition of races – based on geographic distribution and various features of the body – yield classifications similar to those obtained using genetic markers. Use of genetic markers also shows very clearly that there are no “pure” races. Races are, in fact, generally very far from pure and, as a result, any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult. Yet anyone can see that there are certain relatively clear differences between a typical Caucasoid and a typical Mongoloid or a typical Negroid.
In the landmark paper The apportionment of human diversity, R. C. Lewontin found that 85% of all human genetic variation is found between individuals within a nation or tribe and only 6% between the races. Since obvious phenotypical differences exist between human populations, that 6% variation can have significant effects. Not all genetic variation is created equal.
H/T: Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, Jonathan Marks, Jan Sapp, Razib Khan, Todd R. Disotell, Jason Antrosio, A.W.F. Edwards (pdf), Guido Barbujani and Vincenza Colonna(pdf).
candid_observer 1, March 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Good Lord, do I really have to argue the point that, in the conduct of our ordinary lives, we quite readily categorize people into distinct races?
…
Whether such differences in distribution on socially important traits is a matter to be established via science. Suffice it to say for now, however, that there isn’t a single good reason in the world to believe that they don’t exist.
===============================
Many things “exist” that do not have a valid basis in scientific reality.
One example is that the denial of global warming induced climate change “exists” socially, but has no basis in scientific reality.
Race is another social concept, more so than a valid scientific concept.
Hell, as my comments up-thread point out, we do not yet have a valid understanding of what “being human” means, much less pretending that we know imagined subcategories labeled as “race”, especially in light of rapidly developing research about human-microbe symbiosis.
“race is no longer predictive of anything”
I don’t think that is true. Blacks have much higher rates of sickle cell anemia, for example, and also have higher rates of certain metabolic profiles such that race must be a randomization necessity in clinical trials.
Ashkenazi Jews have higher rates of certain birth defects. Australian aborigines have a high occurrence of an ability to restrict blood flow to extremities during sleep, thus preserving core temperatures.
So, besides cultural differences, there are biological ones as well which are predictive.
Tony,
” It was meaningless evolutionary drift due to allopatry back then, and racial distinctions will likely be gone in the next ten or twenty thousand years or so.”
True. As Larry Niven noted in the Known Space tales, we’ll all eventually look “vaguely Chinese”. To me, unless they are an extraterrestrial, a person’s race is one of the least interesting things about them. Cultural differences are much more telling and informative to their character.
Thank you, Dredd.
This abiogenesis demonstration might interest you, it moved a bit fast for me but you may find it old stuff. Concepts from a Nobel winner, although that was for work done years ago. Now it’s abio since 16 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Thank goodness for our microbial symbionts: chloroplasts for plants and our little energy factories whose name is unreachable for the moment. They have their own DNA and come from the mother. Jävlar!
An idea, can we improve our contact with our fears? I feel I can at least effect them, although it is difficult reaching a lasting effect.
The concept that fear and pleasure are primary in all planned work is EXTREMELY interesting to me.
Good Lord, do I really have to argue the point that, in the conduct of our ordinary lives, we quite readily categorize people into distinct races? Aren’t we EXTREMELY good at categorizing people as being, say, of greater than 75% SubSaharan ancestry? How often might we mistake such an individual for someone of, say, 90%+ European ancestry? Yes, of course there exist borderline cases of different degrees of ancestry, but why must we stick our heads in the sand as to these absolutely clear distinctions?
And, if we can and do make these distinctions on a regular basis (and only simple dishonesty will pretend that we don’t) AND it happens that such distinctions ALSO correspond to differences in distribution on some socially important traits, then how we do we get out of the quagmire I described?
Whether such differences in distribution on socially important traits is a matter to be established via science. Suffice it to say for now, however, that there isn’t a single good reason in the world to believe that they don’t exist.
Yes, thank you, Nal.
An excellent way to bring up the subject without all the old baggage.
But as often said: liars figure and so do people who speak from own opinions. Hope it is clear which candid person I am pointing at.
Hoping for a factual reply and not a rage.
idealist707 1, March 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Took a course in evol. biology, so that helped here.
Dredd, interesting that with microbial effects on a wide spectra of organs, etc.
As said, we are all prototypes. No standard models.
It all comes down to “I’m me; your you. And if you fuck with me, I’ll kill you; even if your name is Eve. Gimme back my rib, baby.”
So in extension of that position we fight for ourselves.
Only thing is we got this far by cooperation also.
But we vs them persists.
========================================
Indeed.
Gene H has hit on a socially relevant topic here, and science is adding vastness to the dimensions of this subject matter.
Since our microbe-symbionts take part in brain construction and brain activity, especially the amygdala, where some of the behaviors you speak of are generally controlled, these affectations may in fact be a billion year old war of microbial agents:
(The Toxic Bridge …, quoting Lakoff). The microbial cells that outnumber other human cells by 10 to 1 or so, do not have a “race”, but they may have wars … within us.
It is a new field of study I would recommend to young college students.
I wonder how long it will be before the surly and snarky attacks commence. I have been waiting since 2 am est for the round about free for all. Please do not dissatisfied me.
Cordially,
No Id Please
@candid: It is generally quite easy to categorize the vast majority of individuals into well known races, even on the simplest visual inspection.
Only because that is how culture evolved. It is also easy to categorize people by height, but you don’t call those “races.” It is also easier to categorize people by eye color than their shade of skin or the shape of their nose, but we do not call blue-eyed people a different race than green-eyed, or brown-eyed.
Or natural hair color. For all of these examples, they are unchangeable physiological differences. Why aren’t THOSE visual characteristics, height and eye color and hair color, the basis for racial classification? Because of culture. It was culture that prioritized skin color and facial characteristics as the definition of race.
In the ancient world, they were strongly correlated to locale, culture, language, aggression, and interactive attitudes towards others that made a big difference. They no longer do that, if you meet a Mongol in a courtroom you should not assume they are hostile and will kill you: That would be sooooo first century of you.
Visual race classification had strong cultural predictive powers a few thousand years ago, but since then has lost it: the world is homogenized, race is no longer predictive of anything. It was meaningless evolutionary drift due to allopatry back then, and racial distinctions will likely be gone in the next ten or twenty thousand years or so.
Thank you Nal.
The revolution in the understanding of the human microbiome, even though that revolution is embryonic at this time, has caused scientists to say:
(Hypothesis: Microbes …, emphasis added). In other words, the citation to papers that have not taken the new science into consideration may be talking about human-microbe interactions, not as was once thought, human cell or genetic activity.
candid_observer1, March 4, 2012 at 11:49 am
Would you kindly list a few races that are easily identifiable through external signs and their associated social traits which can be assigned to them in your or another sources opinion. Also can you exclude in a statistical significant way these traits from occuring in other “races” you have defined?
What is the statistical significance (?) associated between a specific race and a specific social trait?
Eagerly looking forward to your answer.
Took a course in evol. biology, so that helped here.
Dredd, interesting that with microbial effects on a wide spectra of organs, etc.
As said, we are all prototypes. No standard models.
It all comes down to “I’m me; your you. And if you fuck with me, I’ll kill you; even if your name is Eve. Gimme back my rib, baby.”
So in extension of that position we fight for ourselves.
Only thing is we got this far by cooperation also.
But we vs them persists.
I think you might take to heart your own motto for this blog: “the thing itself speaks”.
What matters is not whether the terms used to distinguish what we have called races correspond to one previously established biological definition or another. Rather, what matters is whether these “races” (however we choose to define that term more exactly) do, in fact, exhibit different distributions of traits, and whether such differences are found on traits of social significance.
If such socially significant traits exist, then everything else is just, as they say, semantics. The thing itself speaks. The problem of races is not going to go away, however cleverly one might seek to undermine the legitimacy of a pre-existing biological category to cover it.
Why won’t it go away, under those circumstances?
For two reasons:
1. It is generally quite easy to categorize the vast majority of individuals into well known races, even on the simplest visual inspection.
2. On the socially significant traits in which races differ in distribution, our rational expectations of members of different races will differ.
It’s likely that the categorization into races would lapse into insignificance in the ordinary conduct of our lives if all of the differences between races were, indeed, superficial. But it’s pretty inconceivable that the categorizations will die if, instead, races differ on socially significant traits. Precisely because our rational expectations of an individual on traits we care about will differ — perhaps rather dramatically — depending on race, the natural “joints” along which we distinguish people in social and political situations will include race. It will require quite deliberate effort to counteract such expectations in the interests of fairness.
Yes, this presents a moral, social, political, and legal quagmire.
But that quagmire doesn’t actually recede when we bury our heads in the sand.
I like the melting pot idea myself. Race is great for scientists to study, but we have a lot more similarities than differences.
I think the more pertinent question is this: “What will you do with the information?”
Let’s start with the race of red-haired people. There is a specific genetic change for naturally red hair (The MC1R gene on Chr 16); we can tell from a DNA sample if somebody has red hair. Should we treat red-heads differently, like a different race?
I ask because the gene that codes for white skin is also a single mutation, in a single protein on Chr 15. If that can be the basis for “race,” why can’t red hair? Or genetic blindness?
Identifying genetic variance is important for tailoring treatment to the particular morphology of a given patient. Grouping genetic differences into a package with a name is only warranted if there is a high correlation between the mutations. If a collection of mutations always occurs together, that might be an important bit of shorthand.
But the only point of grouping is to predict something else important, meaning something we should treat differently. From a legal and scientific standpoint, race-groups are too vague to predict anything in addition to the criteria used to define them. Dark skin does not predict whether somebody will be a good lawyer or doctor, or if they need financial assistance for school, or whether they should be an engineer. All the criterion predicts is itself: If you select for dark skin, the selectees will have dark skin.
In that sense the genetics of physical markers might be useful for identifying physical attributes of suspects in crimes; but skin color, hair color, eye color, nose structure, epicanthal eye folds, and gender are specific physical attributes (all of which can be disguised); that is not the same as a group of features lumped together as indicative of a “race.”
So the larger question remains: What is the point of classifying people into races? We will probably find all the genetic differences that produce these physical attributes, in the next few decades. I suspect they will not be predictive of anything. So what is the point of grouping them together?
What good does somebody hope to do with a clear scientific determination of race? The point of classification is discrimination based on correlated traits or characteristics. Such discrimination can be useful and helpful; but it is hard for me to think of any useful or helpful discrimination based on race, outside of medical risk factors that should be tested for separately anyway.
This is like a great festering boil dropped into this blogspace. Of course science can’t find a meaningful difference between races because they can’t find truly meaningful differences between man and chimpanzees: there being only about 1.5% difference in the DNA. Perhaps we need to drop this whole idea of “race” and use the proper word: “breed”. Race implies an attempt at speciation of some sort. Breed implies only a difference in size, skin, and hair coloring. The smallest chihuahua can breed without real problem (other than one of size) with the largest mastiff. Dogs is dogs: they have different temperaments which is often related to their breed. They have different sizes, shapes, personalities, colors, and even length of hair. We don’t fight over the different breeds of dogs. So why should we fight over the different breeds of man? No two men are the same; even if they are of the same breed. The only problem with the word “breed” is that it has drifted into the pejorative realm, and so we have lost a word that is more descriptive of the differences in men than the alternatives – like “race”.
The microbial majority within the human superorganism also takes part in the construction and operation of our brain:
(The Human Microbiome Congress). Again, to relate our essence only to skin cell pigmentation is to consider .001 to be a big number, and to consider 99.999 to be a small number (Upside downsville baby!).
We are far more alike than we are different, in cosmic terms.
Race, in the sense of human skin cells, is a tiny minority of the entire cell lineup within us. Ditto for genetic material.
We know next to nothing about the microbial cells that outnumber human cells:
(The Human Microbiome Congress). So genetically human racial considerations are 1% of the genetics. In terms of our cellular makeup, microbes outnumber human cells by an factor of 10. So again, to focus on the minority factors of human race really is a stretch.
Instead, we should learn then remember we are an individual ecosystem within a larger ecosystem, within a cosmos.
Racial considerations are incredibly minuscule, thus, to focus on race as a major issue is, really, to be deluded by a lack of significant facts.
The bottom line is you are different from me and I you.. Because that is a scientific fact…