Classification of Human Race

Wibbs

I really didn't want to step into this particular minefield, but....

Wicknight wrote:

I am saying that "race" doesn't exist as a scientific idea, that the "differences" that we pick out as defining race (skin colour, hair colour, height) are defined culturally by people who want to think of people as different (ie people like yourself).

Wether you like it or not, race does exist as a scientific idea. There are differences between the races in skeletal, skin, hair, immune system, genetic disease profiles, efficacy of medical treatments etc. Local differences occur purely as adaptations to the local environment. Eg an Inuit has many more capillaries in the facial skin when compared to other groups as an adaptation to the cold. The first Europeans were black Africans. Local adaptations made us white. It's plainly a nonsense to suggest that it's just defined culturally.

Ask any doctor or pathologist with experience of the different races(or populations if it makes you feel better) and they'll be able to identify an oriental skull(for example) purely by the differences between the races. That's just one example where the differences can be drawn along generally racial lines. By your thinking the differences between a wolf an a poodle are "culturally" based, yet their genetic differences are very small.

Haplogroups are genetic markers that help scientists track population groups. "Population" is an real scientic idea that has largely replaced the non-scientic idea of race.

If it has it's down to the more silly conclusions in the past about race/populations.

So we can see, through markers, where a persons accesters spend time, and how they breed together.

. Where they've been exposed to the same environment which resulted in the same adaptations and the same shared genetic heritage, thus defining them along general racial lines.

But you and me (ie two white Irish people) will have some similar and some vastly different haplotypes

Mostly similar, unless one of you had some more distant ancestry. How do you think they track these "population" and their movements?

There is nothing stopping a black man having the same haplotype marks as you, it just means he has lived in the same are as you.

It's slightly possible, but very very unlikely. If he and his ancestors lived in the same area as you for an extended period of time he's going to have the same adaptations and genetic markers as you, so chances are he'd have the same basic haplotypes as you and have a 99% chance of being white. Only if he belonged to an isolated recent population with no outside intermixing would he have any chance of having black skin.

I'm sorry, but ideas like this are as bad as Knowitalls generalisations. It helps nobody when the obvious is ignored for the sake of an unwillingness to possibly offend. Only recently there's been a drive in the UK for more ethnic groups to donate blood and organs as the existing white stocks don't provide enough of a match. Try telling a sick person of Afro-Carribean extraction that their wait for a kidney is because of cultural reasons.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Wether you like it or not, race does exist as a scientific idea. There are differences between the races in skeletal, skin, hair, immune system, genetic disease profiles, efficacy of medical treatments etc.

There are differences between people in relation to skeletal, skin, hair etc etc, based on where their ancestors developed, how they have breed etc. No one is denying that. What there isn't is differences that fall neatly into categories that can be called "races". For example with two black men it is safe to say at sometime within the last 500 years they had ancestors living in Africa. Their skin colour is a marker to hint at their origins. But these two black men, while sharing the same skin colour, could be as genetically to each other as they are to a white Irish person. What race are the black men? Are they both negros because they are black, even if the 2nd black man actually shares more genes in common with the white Irish man?

Wibbs wrote:

Local differences occur purely as adaptations to the local environment. Eg an Inuit has many more capillaries in the facial skin when compared to other groups as an adaptation to the cold. The first Europeans were black Africans. Local adaptations made us white. It's plainly a nonsense to suggest that it's just defined culturally.

Exactly, the first Europeans were really just adaptations of black africans. We share far more than we are different. That is perciesly why the idea of "race", the caterogrising of humans into distinct groups, distinct sub-species, like you can do with other mamals such as dogs and cats, is now widely considered nonsense biologically. Put simply, there is not enough genetic differences between the people of the earth to classifiy one group as wholey distinct from another. More genetic difference may exist inside a group defined on the classical idea of race than between the groups. Or to put it another way, we are all equally different. I could be as genetically different to you as to a South African. Sure we share the same genetic marks that show we have decended from Europeans, but equally we have as many different genes as common ones. It is culture that decides what are important noticable differences (ie skin colour) and then decides to classify people that way.

Wibbs wrote:

Ask any doctor or pathologist with experience of the different races(or populations if it makes you feel better) and they'll be able to identify an oriental skull(for example) purely by the differences between the races.

But thats the point. It is "populations" and the ideas of populations is different that the idea of race. Population studies the different environments and anncestoral lines of groups of people. That is why people with ancestors from Asia, or certain parts of Asia have certain characteristics such as skull shape. But people with in Asia have different skull shapes, that are all different than African skulls, but are also different from each other.

You don't seem to actually understand what "race" means. Everyone is different, and depending on their ancestoral lines they will have different characteristics. Thats a given. But what the idea of race says is that the human species is divided up into distinct groups, sub-species as it were. But genetically that just doesn't hold water. There is not a line that can be drawn that divides the human species into a set of sub-species. It is just a large mass of grey, with diffent populations bluring into other populations.

Wibbs wrote:

That's just one example where the differences can be drawn along generally racial lines. By your thinking the differences between a wolf an a poodle are "culturally" based, yet their genetic differences are very small.

What "racial lines". You are taking the already exisiting racial group of "Asian" and saying they have differents skull shapes from other pre-exisiting races. What about the different skull shapes that exisit with in the Asian "race"? And why skull shape? You chose that marker because it fitted the already exisiting idea of race. If a Irish and Asian person share 99.9% of human genetic markers but their skull shape is different are they are different race? If two Asian people share the same skull shape but only share 80% of the human genetic markers are they different races?

Wibbs wrote:

. Where they've been exposed to the same environment which resulted in the same adaptations and the same shared genetic heritage, thus defining them along general racial lines.

But what are the racial lines? Skin colour? Height? The Ocean? People in middle africa can be wildly different, genetically, from people in South Africa. Are they the same race because they share the same skin colour? Are the people who developed and lives in the African deserts the same race as those who have ancestors who lived in the plains?

Wibbs wrote:

Mostly similar, unless one of you had some more distant ancestry. How do you think they track these "population" and their movements?

They track population through genetic markers. But as I have explained population is different than the idea of race.

Wibbs wrote:

Try telling a sick person of Afro-Carribean extraction that their wait for a kidney is because of cultural reasons.

Afro-Carribean ancestory is a population classifcation, not a racial classifcation. That is my whole point. Or put another way, What "race" is an Afro-Carribean person?

KnowItAll

Wicknight wrote:

there is not enough genetic differences between the people of the earth to classifiy one group as wholey distinct from another.

We are about 98% genetically similar to monkeys. Does that mean we are the same species?

You call the different races groups. Whats the point in confusing the matter?

U$ername

My apologies for sounding racist but i must revert to my 6 year old view of races for a clear answer: Black,White,Squinty.
Anything after that is a mix of those three.

As for Australoids, didnt they kill the dinosaurs?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

There are differences between people in relation to skeletal, skin, hair etc etc, based on where their ancestors developed, how they have breed etc. No one is denying that. What there isn't is differences that fall neatly into categories that can be called "races". For example with two black men it is safe to say at sometime within the last 500 years they had ancestors living in Africa. Their skin colour is a marker to hint at their origins. But these two black men, while sharing the same skin colour, could be as genetically to each other as they are to a white Irish person. What race are the black men? Are they both negros because they are black, even if the 2nd black man actually shares more genes in common with the white Irish man?

While nobody is denying the shared genotype heritage of humanity, our phenotypes are different and can be divided into groups. You mention cats and dogs. Science divides these into sub groups/species with little problem. A nth American timber wolf is considered a sub species to a Siberian timber wolf or the southern American red wolf or indeed a pet Labrador. They are all the same species(Canus Lupus), they can interbreed successfully and their gene differences are in the same range as humans(yet there phenotypes are different) . Why are humans considered any different? What is the problem with regarding ourselves the same way? If it was any other animal, science would have little difficulty with describing sub species within the population

What "racial lines". You are taking the already exisiting racial group of "Asian" and saying they have differents skull shapes from other pre-exisiting races. What about the different skull shapes that exisit with in the Asian "race"? And why skull shape? You chose that marker because it fitted the already exisiting idea of race. If a Irish and Asian person share 99.9% of human genetic markers but their skull shape is different are they are different race? If two Asian people share the same skull shape but only share 80% of the human genetic markers are they different races?

I choose skull shape purely as an example. You could also choose, skin, hair, eye colour, skeletal differences and would get similar results.

But what are the racial lines? Skin colour? Height? The Ocean? People in middle africa can be wildly different, genetically, from people in South Africa. Are they the same race because they share the same skin colour? Are the people who developed and lives in the African deserts the same race as those who have ancestors who lived in the plains?

Make your mind up. On the one hand you are saying that the genetic variation between a black African and a white Irishman is small, now central Africans can be "wildly" different from South Africans.

Afro-Carribean ancestory is a population classifcation, not a racial classifcation. That is my whole point. Or put another way, What "race" is an Afro-Carribean person?

African with a possible mixture of European genes as a result of the history of the slave trade.

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

We are about 98% genetically similar to monkeys. Does that mean we are the same species?

No it doesn't, because it is possible to see clearly the differences genetically between humans and monkeys. It is not possible to see clearly different genetic "races" between humans.

KnowItAll wrote:

You call the different races groups. Whats the point in confusing the matter?

Because there are literally hundreds of thousands of different human population variations. So if you want to use the word "race" to describe these groups, that would mean there were hundreds of thousands of human "races", which makes the term meaningless.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

If it was any other animal, science would have little difficulty with describing sub species within the population

Yes, and it is perciesly because science cannot describe sub-species with in humans, not for any PC point of view, but because the genetic difference aren't there, that the idea of race (ie sub-species) in humans is non-scientific.

Wibbs wrote:

I choose skull shape purely as an example. You could also choose, skin, hair, eye colour, skeletal differences and would get similar results.

THats the point. You choose the trate that is different, ignoring the traits that are similar, because the idea of "race" is already implanted in the culture.

Wibbs wrote:

Make your mind up. On the one hand you are saying that the genetic variation between a black African and a white Irishman is small, now central Africans can be "wildly" different from South Africans.

Bangs head against wall ... THATS THE POINT!!!

An Irishman can be more genetically similar to a person from Africa, than two people from Africa. It is common to find more genetic variety inside classical racial groups that between them. I could have more genetic characteristics in common with a South African than he would have with someone from middle Africa.

Wibbs wrote:

African with a possible mixture of European genes as a result of the history of the slave trade.

So, what race is he?

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, and it is perciesly because science cannot describe sub-species with in humans, not for any PC point of view, but because the genetic difference aren't there, that the idea of race (ie sub-species) in humans is non-scientific.

If you apply the same criteria to Canus lupus as you would to Homo Sapiens Sapiens then sub species among both, especially in phenotype expression are there. This would be true for other sub species that are almost identical genetically but are considered different enough to warrant the sub species title.

THats the point. You choose the trate that is different, ignoring the traits that are similar, because the idea of "race" is already implanted in the culture.

Well, that's a spurious argument. Of course I point out the differences. It's little to do with culture beyond the obvious unfortunate historical loading of the word race. If we forget the word "race" for the moment, call it population/group/sub species if you will. Species and sub species, among other criteria are defined by their differences. if one compared African elephants and Indian elephants by their similarities, one would come to the conclusion that they're the same species. Another example would be the Iberian wolf. It's genetic drift from the more common European wolf is less than 3%(they share far more than they differ, even moreso than modern humans), yet they look different(eg. phenotype expression favours short hair for the climate) and are considered a sub species. Similar examples exist among big cats, rodents, birds etc. If you don't subscribe to this notion a whole re-think of the very notion of species and sub species is needed(In fairness, there are issues even within this as a pekinese and a great dane are considered the same species, yet their size difference is such that a successful mating and birth would be unlikely, thereby making them functionally different species with near identical DNA). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies.

Bangs head against wall ... THATS THE POINT!!!

An Irishman can be more genetically similar to a person from Africa, than two people from Africa. It is common to find more genetic variety inside classical racial groups that between them. I could have more genetic characteristics in common with a South African than he would have with someone from middle Africa.

My contention is that for an Irishman to be more genetically similar to an African(of any kind) than a fellow African, they must have a shared genetic background in the recent past. Thereby their phenotype would be very similar if not identical. While we all share common roots and as such share a common genetic heritage, the differences are there in the expression of those genes. If not we would all have the same hair, skin, eye colour, skeletal structure, endecrine system et al and clearly we don't.

As modern travel increases the chances of intermarriage these lines will become more blurred over time and it's likely that in a few 1000 yrs we'll all have similar phenotypes anyway. Offhand, I can't think of another species where that has happened. How cool are humans

Anyway, my contention continues to be that you can plot the various population groups among broadly racial/population/genetic phenotype lines. As you've pointed out these groups are more convoluted and numerous than the lazy black white and yellow that some would suggest. We're only beginning to scratch the surface of the so called "junk" DNA in the human genome. Who knows what light that will shed on modern human evolution, populations and migrations.

So, what race is he?

Human "race" with most likely sub Saharan western African Negroid with some possible Western European Caucasoid genes, picked up through intermarriage.

zenith

DJDC, attack the argument, not the person. You're warned.

Zombrex

As DJDC quite elegantly (:rolleyes:) pointed out I am a computer scientist, not a biologiest, so I will leave it to Steven Rose (a prof in biology) writting in the Guardian to explain my point better than I can ...

Wibbs wrote:

While we all share common roots and as such share a common genetic heritage, the differences are there in the expression of those genes. If not we would all have the same hair, skin, eye colour, skeletal structure, endecrine system et al and clearly we don't.

Guardian wrote:

In 1972, the evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin pointed out that 85% of human genetic diversity occurred within rather than between populations, and only 6%-10% of diversity is associated with the broadly defined races.

IE, that classical identifable features of "race" (skin colour, hair colour etc) account for only 6%-10% of the actual genetic diversity of the human species, and you are far more likely to find wide genetic diversity within classical "racal" groups.

No you can point out that an Asian clearly has a different skull structure than a European. No one is denying that. They come from two completely different population groups half way across the world. The point is the line between an Asian and a European cannot be drawn. All you have is a big mass of blurred grey, slowing moving from the classical idea of Asian to the classical idea of European. An you will end up with people with in the groups themselves being wildly different.

This is a graphic I used in a post on an earlier thread to illustrate my point

Guardian wrote:

Last autumn, an entire issue of the influential journal Nature Reviews Genetics was devoted to it. The broad consensus remained unchanged. The geneticists agreed with most biological anthropologists that for human biology the term "race" was an unhelpful leftover.

Race is not scientific, it is a hold over from a culturally defined stereotypical division of the human species. The idea of "populations" and "heritage" have replaced the idea of "race" (and they are two seperate ideas mind, "population" is not the idea of "race" by a PC name)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

Guardian wrote:

Whatever arbitrary boundaries one places on any population group for the purposes of genetic research, they do not match those of conventionally defined races.
..
For instance, there are average gene differences between the populations of north and south Wales, which contribute to different geographically distributed disease susceptibilities, but it would be a bold scientist or politician who would argue that here are two distinct races.

Wibbs wrote:

Anyway, my contention continues to be that you can plot the various population groups among broadly racial/population/genetic phenotype lines.

Guardian wrote:

The problem is that the more genetic diversity is discovered, the smaller become the sub-populations that could be described as races. The DNA of native Brits contains traces of multiple waves of occupiers and migrants.
...
Broad racial classifications mask great genetic diversity within them. Thus sickle-cell anaemia is prevalent in people whose ancestors came from malaria-rife regions, including the Mediterranean coastline, not simply Africa; and Ashkenazi, but not Sephardi, Jews have a higher risk of Tay-Sachs disease and breast cancer.

Guardian wrote:

The consequence is that, as a scientific concept, race is well past its sell-by date

Is that "expert" enough for ya DJDC :rolleyes:

Wibbs

IE, that classical identifiable features of "race" (skin colour, hair colour etc) account for only 6%-10% of the actual genetic diversity of the human species, and you are far more likely to find wide genetic diversity within classical "racal" groups.

I'm not denying that there is genetic diversity within the classical racial groups, I'm simply saying that there are phenotypal differences that can be found among the various races/sub species/populations of the world. 6 - 10% of one's DNA can account for many differences.

No you can point out that an Asian clearly has a different skull structure than a European. No one is denying that. They come from two completely different population groups half way across the world. The point is the line between an Asian and a European cannot be drawn. All you have is a big mass of blurred grey, slowing moving from the classical idea of Asian to the classical idea of European. An you will end up with people with in the groups themselves being wildly different.

I never said that there isn't a sliding scale between the groups. Of course there is. In the same way two sub species of animals share traits where their populations overlap. I just find it strange that when science deals with the rest of the animal animal kingdom there seems little difficulty in ascribing sub species tags to animals that are more isolated and have obvious, distinctive phenotype differences. While there are grey areas, you can certainly broadly define sub groups within the human race based on phenotype, especially in the more isolated groups. EG The Sami of Lapland, the Inuit of the arctic, the pygmies of central Africa, the Australian Aborigines, or the Maasai of Kenya, would certainly get sub species recognition if we were talking about any other animal. It's not just down to colour of skin either, the latter three while having black skin would be quite distinct from each other.

The problem is that the more genetic diversity is discovered, the smaller become the sub-populations that could be described as races. The DNA of native Brits contains traces of multiple waves of occupiers and migrants.

Then they're not "native" as the mixing of the DNA has bred out much of the original(Not a bad thing either as diversity is a good thing for a species).

Broad racial classifications mask great genetic diversity within them. Thus sickle-cell anaemia is prevalent in people whose ancestors came from malaria-rife regions, including the Mediterranean coastline, not simply Africa.

Fine, but what about the areas of the planet(EG south east Asia) that has malaria but doesn't have sickle cell anaemia. the sickle cell gene is prevalant in Africa and in areas close to same. It's just as likely that the Mediterranean variant is due to cross breeding between the groups.

Originally Posted by Wibbs

Anyway, my contention continues to be that you can plot the various population groups among broadly racial/population/genetic phenotype lines.

I still stand by this statement with the caveat that areas which have had more recent migrations, the lines are blurred.


PS Rare it is when I'm called an expert Even rarer when it's true....