-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).
idealist707 1, March 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Dredd,
But if they were not afraid and were as a consequence eaten up, then their genes would be removed from the gene pool …
===================================
I don’t think the little zebra with mud on it would eat the herd.
The herd’s fear was not an advancement, any more than paranoia today, generated by The Ways of Bernays, is an advancement.
Again, as I pointed out up-thread, in humans the gene pool is 1%, at most, “human” genes, and 99% microbe genes.
You must deal with the most in any reputable hypothesis.
That whole gene thingy must be revised, as was stated up-thread, because “Things Have Changed” (Bob Dylan).
Survival of the most-paranoid is not “life”, and in most cases it does not even equate to bare survival IMO.
Yes, to that AY. There’s plenty of stupidity to go around…
(Thanks for the posting, Nal.)
Tony,
Race is nice not determinetive of stupidity….. That comes natural in all races…..
Tony C.
Hear, hear.
“More importantly, race has lost much of its value for determining cultural or social information about somebody in order to guide one’s interactions with them.”
Would this wera always true.
I get this delivered every day by my social helpers who assist me at home.
My being American helps get over their reticence when questioned by Swedes. Sorry forgot to mention this is about the 50 percent who are immigrants.
Never had a dumb immigrant, nor for that matter a dumb swede either. Guess the job requires more, or the scarcity of jobs for all leads to overqualified help for me.
At any rate, all my discussions, when they are truly willing and not just polite, are very giving.
I think I posted something up the thread about my kurdish helper with a CEO capacity. Look if you like.
Dredd,
But if they were not afraid and were as a consequence eaten up, then their genes would be removed from the gene pool. Thus fear of the unknown was a survival plus, as it promoted running from the fearful thing. Shall we also draw the conclusion that foals who fall into mud pool are also deselected.
Or course if it could fly or hop 10 miles a hop, it woud also be good from a survival from attack, but might have other negative consequences. Not to be facetious mind you. They say most genetic changes don’t promote survival. Shall we conclude on the basis of no data, that fleeing fearful objects was strongly pro-survival?
@Roger Lambert: I don’t think that is true. Blacks have much higher rates of sickle cell anemia, for example…
The key words are higher rate, the race is not determinative.
However, you missed the point entirely: In 1000 BC the difference between races was highly correlated with their mode of interaction (cooperative or hostile) and their cultural expectations.
That is far less true today, especially if you are meeting people at random in, say, a store, or a business conference. For example, for about two years (as part of a contract) I managed a person of Chinese ancestry raised in Mexico by Mexican parents. He speaks fluent Spanish and English and zero Chinese; he is a Mexican citizen, technically, culturally and emotionally. If you judge this individual on sight, whatever you think you gain by classifying him as “Chinese” will be false.
Conversely, I am friends with a guy of Native American ancestry, whose family was military: From the age of 3 to 17, his father was stationed in Germany, and he speaks and reads unaccented German like a native. You are not going to guess that from looking at him.
Race is not determinative of medical condition, and is irrelevant in meritocratic terms, it does not determine ability, attitude, or propensity. More importantly, race has lost much of its value for determining cultural or social information about somebody in order to guide one’s interactions with them.
idealist707 1, March 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Dredd,
So much you say is rich in concepts.
Fear, I shall state, is based on a proven by experience and genetically selected fear of the unknown.
An example seen in a film on zebras showed how the herd reacted to a foal who had the misfortune in their migration to fall in a mud pool.
I think you can supply the rest yourself.
Only when the mud began to wear off so the “sameness” began to reappear was the foal accepted again. Not even its bleatings had summoned the mother.
==================================
Interesting.
That goes back to your up-thread statements:
The muddy zebra was no longer one of the zebra “race”.
Perhaps this notion of “race” originated in pure fear rather than in human fear alone, then was passed along.
I would not call that natural selection, I would call it random mutation in the form of a mistake.
If enough young zebras fell into mud, thereby becoming another “race”, and thereafter were not cleansed by rain, etc., the zebra herd could be in trouble as a result of their mistaken fear.
idealist707 1, March 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Dredd,
Please let me have the hubris to suggest you look at it another time, watching to pick up the mentions of functions which are found in “life” and are necessary acquisitions in the process of creating the first living microbes.
One is growth, often by disadvantaging another competing form.
Another is reproduction. A third is energy processing, a fourth is a cell like structure without protein or fat based membranes. It all began without proteins, they were too complicated. Etc.
I’m sure if you look for the functions as they are revealed, one by one, you’ll understand what the video means by way of life.
===========================
I will reiterate part of a quote in my comment up-thread:
The first order of business is not biology, rather it is chemistry and cosmology.
So “growth”, “competition”, and other notions must be first addressed in that context, assuming machines can grow, compete, and/or reproduce.
An understanding of how simple machines first formed (electrons, neutrons, protons became atoms), then became more complex machines (molecules), then highly specialized machines (e.g. prions, phages, and viruses).
Machine evolution is the first play, the second play is organics, and in the context of race, if we can’t find its origin there, or anywhere other than an origin in the “human race”, why can’t we can hypothesize that “race” is a human notion, not a scientifically provable notion?
Whether or not we can move such a hypothesis on into a theory is what we are discussing here, it would seem.
Dredd,
So much you say is rich in concepts.
Fear, I shall state, is based on a proven by experience and genetically selected fear of the unknown.
An example seen in a film on zebras showed how the herd reacted to a foal who had the misfortune in their migration to fall in a mud pool.
I think you can supply the rest yourself.
Only when the mud began to wear off so the “sameness” began to reappear was the foal accepted again. Not even its bleatings had summoned the mother.
Dredd,
Please let me have the hubris to suggest you look at it another time, watching to pick up the mentions of functions which are found in “life” and are necessary acquisitions in the process of creating the first living microbes.
One is growth, often by disadvantaging another competing form.
Another is reproduction. A third is energy processing, a fourth is a cell like structure without protein or fat based membranes. It all began without proteins, they were too complicated. Etc.
I’m sure if you look for the functions as they are revealed, one by one, you’ll understand what the video means by way of life.
Candid Observer
As to IQ tests, we accept I hope that they are culturally biased and thus contested as to relevance in international use.
Would you please clarify what you mean by social traits. I’m not sure I understand what seems clear to you. Can you give me some examples, please.
idealist707 1, March 4, 2012 at 12:49 pm
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 …
======================================
Nice music in the background. One shortfall in that presentation is that there is no definition of “life”. If one does not know what something is, it is axiomatic that its origin can’t be isolated.
There is a series that begins at a better place for contemplating the beginning of “life”:
(Putting A Face On Machine Mutation). The elements, at the atomic level, are machines of various degrees of complication.
They “come together” to form molecules, which are nothing more than more complicated machines.
According to current cosmology, these machines came into existence before organic material, which is machines + more “complex organization” = organics … which at some point we call “life.”
Do machines have “race”, do “organics” have race, and if so where does it originate?
I think the notion of “race” is a subconscious construct, emanating from ancient fears, ancient baggage, and inflamed by the amygdala at some point.
Candid Observer,
Not to be insistent, but you give me; as I give you points on which we differ.
Evolution, due to whatever process, is unguided; ie a random process.
There is no point to any genetic change, that is accepted now.
Only survival value is the selection between individuals, and to some degree between larger groups.
Maybe you have taken a course in evolutional biology. I found it fascinating.
idealist707,
There most certainly are other facts to offer on this debate, though it is of course an entirely different discussion to get into them in relevant detail.
A survey of some of the evidence, for and against, on one very critical socially important trait might be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
I will simply say that, for many, many years, I myself believed that, on this issue, the most reasonable view was an agnostic one: that there was no compelling evidence that races differ on their distributions of IQ due to differences in genetic distributions.
That agnosticism, didn’t, however, survive a careful look at the full mass of evidence relevant to the issue.
Dredd,
Not in terms of “winning”, but in terms of enlightenment it only gets better and better. Particularly the “not knowing what the human is”.
Remind me to tell you about the male and female chimp that “cooperated”.
Little Johnny: Mom, How come I’m a different breed than you?
Mom: Well, Johnny…from what I can remember of that night, it wouldn’t surprise me if you were a different species.
Damn program.
PS As yóu may understand my wish is that we different subspecies can learn to tolerate our differences and not feel threatened by them..
In a way it is no different than the specialization of tasks which has developed from before civilisation began. Tools such as axe heads were traded over long distances before cultivation began.
We need peace more than competition at this point is my opinion.
candid_observer1, March 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm
PS As yóu may understand my wish is that we different subspecies can learn to tolerate and otherwise threatening.
In a way it is no different than the specialization of tasks which has developed from before civilisation began. Tools such as axe heads were traded over long distances before cultivation began.
We need peace more than competition at this point is my opinion.
candid_observer1, March 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Thank you for a congenial reply.
I understand ýou to say you have no more facts to offer, however rest your argument on a obvious premise, as you see it.
We’ll just have to wait and see what science determines.
” 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.”
Why you might believe that all differences are “meaningless evolutionary drift” eludes me entirely. Obviously, pigmentation differences aren’t meaningless evolutionary drift — and we have no reason to believe that other traits which aren’t superficial haven’t also come about via differential selection.
In any case, I’m worried about what we do in the next ten or twenty thousand years.