Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Genetic Reality of Race

  1. #1
    Member
    Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post Genetic Reality of Race

    The author furnished the excerpt with his own comments, but the text speaks for itself.


    In WHERE DO WE COME FROM: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent (Springer, 2002) Klein and Takahata write, on page 381,
    ''The species, as the only biologically definable category, provides a dividing line in biological classification. Most of the other categories (genus, family, order, etc) are positioned above the species level, while only a few are in the sub-species level. The latter, which include variety, subspecies, and race, are poorly defined and ambiguous. Any deviation from the holotype, the specimen on which the description of a new species is based, is referred to as a variety, even when the deviation is in a single morphological character. A subspecies is a population or a group of phenotypically similar populations inhabiting a geographically defined region and differing from other populations of the same species in diagnostic characters. Race is used by taxonomists either as a synonymn of sub-species or as a designation of a local population within a sub-species. Different variants, subspecies, or races of the same species are either known or expected to interbreed if given the opportunity.’’

    [Note that only a single character is enough to distinguish a 'variety', and SOME distinguishing designation is certainly called for between Europeans and Asians. Thus we canconservatively say Euros and Asians are different varieties.

    Next, consider that statement, ''race is used by taxonomists either as a synonym of sub-species or as a designation of a local population within a sub-species''. That means race signifies a greater distinction than variety, and it might be used to distinguish a 'lesser' difference than subspecies.

    Klein and Takahata discuss how the gorillas are divided into subspecies by their fur length and color or various morphological characteristics. They go on to say,]

    ''All this is biological reality which raises few emotions. Taxonomists may disagree on the number, delineation, name, indeed on the very existence of the subdivisions in a particular species, but other than that they find nothing objectionable about the notion of species consisting of populations between which gene flow has been reduced, because of the geographical distance between them, for example.'' and ''Biologically, H. sapiens is a species like any other and as such it might be expected to be differentiated into subspecies, especially since its global distribution creates opportunities for adaptation to different climatic conditions and so for morphological divergence.''

    [Commenting on the current, PC effort to deny the very existence of race, K and T write,]

    ''The proposal to scrap the concept of race altogether is currently only one extreme in a range of views. It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist. The public, however, seems unimpressed by their rhetoric. It refuses to believe that the differences they see are a mere figment of their imagination. A lay-person can tell with a high degree of accuracy where individuals come from just by glimpsing their features.

    [The authors give a specific example and go on to write,]

    ''Except for some anthropologists, everybody else seems to be able to distinguish people from different parts of the world at a glance by their outward appearance. This apparently is also the view of some government administrators in countries with programs designed to fight racial discrimination. Obviously, there is a credibility gap between some anthropologists on the one side and the public, as well as the governments of some countries, on the other. One way to settle the arguments among anthropologists and to reconcile anthropologists with the public might be to move away from physical characteristics and focus on the genes. If races are real, they should have a genetic basis separable from environmental and cultural influences.'' and ''Provided the races separated a long time ago, random genetic drift should have diversified their genetic composition even in the absence of selection. It can be expected that the longer ago the races diverged, the greater the differences between them will be. Even if there has not been enough time to 'fix' different alleles in distinct races, at least differences in gene frequencies should have been generated.''

    [The research discussed in Letter to the Editor of Discover (posted on site) describes the results from the sort of study Klein and Takahata suggest. It turns out there ARE fixed alleles that vary by race, and different frequencies that are associated with Africans, Europeans, and Asians. In other words, there ARE genetic 'races' in spite of the disingenuous statements that are publicized in an attempt to obfuscate and deny the facts. Everyone has noted that Europeans have white skins; many of them have lightly pigmented eyes and hair; on the other hand Africans have dark skin, hair, and eyes, while Asians have dark eyes and hair, and Eurasian hair has a different texture from that of Africans.

    Harding et al. (in Evidence for Variable Selective Pressure at MC1R, Amerian Journal of Human Genetics, 66:1351-61, 2000) studied the MC1R gene, which influences the pigmentation of eyes, hair, and skin. They found that all Africans, and tropical indigenes in general, had an ancestral form of the gene, as also found in chimps: there were NO non-synonymous alleles. Thus, they contend that MC1R is tightly constrained in the tropics; this implies that any population radiating 'Out of Africa' would have been black. By contrast, there were several alleles, at various frequencies among European populations, accounting for the observed ubiquity of white skin, and substantial frequency of light hair and eye colors. These alleles could ONLY have arisen in populations that left the tropics a very long time ago, or never lived there to begin with. It would have taken a long time for the mutations in these alleles to occur and then rise to the observed distribution. Harding et al. calculate that at least a hundred thousand years, and possibly more than twice that long, might be required for one of these alleles to reach its current frequency. I defy any population geneticist to produce a credible model of genetic mutation and diffusion that turns an all-black African population into an all-white European population in the 50 to 70 thousand years that current Out of Africa models permit! And remember that those same afrocentrists claim the African radiation replaced the indigenous Eurasians, rather than interbreeding with them, so they can’t postulate acquisition of MC1R alleles from archaic Europeans, followed by selection to achieve fixation of euro-genes; that would be more like absorption than replacement! Moreover, they must, but can’t, explain why the putative African radiation in Asia produced an entirely different variety and set of alleles. The afrocentrists appeal to selection, but Harding finds evidence that MC1R has NOT been selected at Euro-specific alleles, though it has been tightly CONSTRAINED to the ancestral form in the tropics. Klein and Takahata, writing of the various attempts to explain what kind of selection would make ALL Europeans white, or account for their eyes and hair, concede that,]

    “None of these explanations is fully satisfactory” and “Satisfactory explanations are also not available for hair color and texture, eye color, and other external differences between human races.”

    [Before the recent advances in genetics it was possible to contend that black Africans were somehow converted into Eurasians. Geneticists speak glibly of ''drift'' as if it were a serious theory for how ALL those putative black Africans turned white in Europe and yellow in Asia; and not just their skin color, but all the other soft tissue, cranial, and intellectual features. Everybody changed completely and there was no mix of people with different degrees and phenotypic expressions of afro-characters. What kind of a pseudo-science theory of population dynamics could yield an ALL white-characteristic Europe from blacks? There is an old saying that some ideas are so dumb only highly educated people can believe them.

    As noted above, no satisfactory explanations were forthcoming for such conversion, but the socio-political, PC 'virtue' of an African origins theory was irresistible to academia and media opinion makers. The early research on mtDNA was misinterpreted to support the ''African Eve'', or ''Out of Africa'' theories, by asserting that all human mtDNA came from an African woman. This assertion is maintained today, and it continues to be represented as 'proving' African replacement, even though the data does NOT justify such an assumption. See Plural Lineages in the Human mtDNA Genome (posted on site) for contraindications.

    Since the morphological, genetically mediated, differences between Europeans, Asians, and Africans are so obvious, those who wish to deny the biological reality of race are forced (against all common-sense) to argue that such differences are statistically trivial. Lewontin, for instance, argues that since ''only'' 15% of the variation in the human genome is completely correlated to race, that such differences are trivial. As noted in the closing paragraph of Letter to the Editor of DISCOVER, this is a deceitful argument. Klein and Takahata are quite PC on the subject of race, but they have too much scientific integrity to misrepresent the data as Feldman does; here is what they say,]

    ''Formally, these findings demonstrate, first, that the species is indeed subdivided into genetically definable groups of individuals and, second, that at least some of those groups correspond to those defined by anthropologists as races on the basis of physical characters.''

    [Klein and Takahata note that, in spite of the genetic findings, many continue to argue that such distinctions are trivial. Then they write,]

    ''By contrast, Sewall Wright, who can hardly be taken for a dilettante in questions of population genetics, has stated emphatically that if differences of this magnitude were observed in any other species, the groups they distinguish would be called subspecies.”

    [So, while genetic research does support traditional and common-sense racial distinctions, it is even more consistent with a nuanced view that the major distinction is between the indigenes of New Guinea/Australia and sub-Saharan Africans versus Eurasians. The differences between Europeans and northern Asians are minor by comparison, so the old tri-racial distinction of white, yellow, and black, while not invalid, is not strictly accurate from a taxonomic perspective. Genetically, we should regard Europeans and northern Asians as varieties of H. s. sapiens; the sub-Saharan Africans and Australian/NG populations as subspecies, and the back-crossed hybrid indigenes of N. Africa and much of southern Asia as one or more races.

    Klein and Takahata write,]

    ''One can extend Wrights argument even further. The more than two hundred species of haplochromine fishes in Lake Victoria differ from each other much less than the human races in their neutral genes, although they are presumably distinguished by genes that control differences in their external appearances. The same can be said about at least some of the currently recognized species of Darwins finches and about other examples of recent adaptive radiations. In all these cases, reproductively isolated groups are impossible to tell apart by the methods used to measure differences between the human races. Obviously human races are not reproductively isolated (interracial marriages are common and the progenies of such marriages are fully fertile) but the external differences between them are comparable to those between the cichlid fishes and Darwin's finches. Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion? How much difference would Lewontin and those who side with him consider non-trivial?''

    [Actually Klein and Takahata understate human racial differences by calling them ''comparable'' to the finches and cichlids, because only an expert can tell those birds and fishes apart, while any ordinary person can tell another persons race at a glance!

    K and T go on to write,]

    “By mixing science with politics, geneticists and anthropologists are committing the same infraction of which they are accusing other scientists, whom they themselves label as racists. Even worse, by dismissing genetic differences as insignificant, they play into the hands of genuine racists who can easily demolish this claim.”

    [These genetic differences between human races offer an important test of the Out of Africa theory, and it fails!]

    “Multiregionalists have no difficulty explaining the 10-15% differences between the human groups. Since they assume that the differentiation began up to 2 my ago, when H.erectus established founding populations in the different regions, there has been sufficient time to accumulate the differences.Uniregionalists [Out of Africa theorists] who assume that the differentiation into groups began after the exodus of H. sapiens from Africa, are at a disadvantage, because calculations indicate that only under highly unrealistic assumptions (e.g., no gene flow between populations) would the time interval suffice for the origin of the observed differences.”


    Source:
    http://rafonda.com/html/genetic_reality_of_race.html
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  2. #2
    Disinterested

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,401
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Triglav
    In WHERE DO WE COME FROM: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent (Springer, 2002) Klein and Takahata write, on page 381, ''The species, as the only biologically definable category, provides a dividing line in biological classification. Most of the other categories (genus, family, order, etc) are positioned above the species level, while only a few are in the sub-species level.
    Actually theres a rule that animals or plants are different species, if they cant interbreed to create fertile offspring, but it doesnt have to work the other way around, so species is itself poorly defined and I feel species definitions are largely irrelevant to practical anthropology.

    And phenetically theres good evidence to support the division of Gorilla gorilla into species, because gorillas differ more than modern human populations, and the difference is greater than that seperating cloesly related species of primate from each other.

  3. #3
    Member
    Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post AW: Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    Actually theres a rule that animals or plants are different species, if they cant interbreed to create fertile offspring,
    Yep.

    but it doesnt have to work the other way around,
    What exactly do you mean by "the other way around"?

    And phenetically theres good evidence to support the division of Gorilla gorilla into species, because gorillas differ more than modern human populations, and the difference is greater than that seperating cloesly related species of primate from each other.
    Such as?
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  4. #4
    Disinterested

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,401
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: AW: Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Triglav
    What exactly do you mean by "the other way around"?
    I mean that populations which can interbreed, can still be considered to be seperate species.

    Such as?
    The source I gave you before includes examples of this. The differences that are claimed to exist between mountain gorillas and western lowland gorillas are found in that study to exceed those between chimpanzees and bonobos, and between the two genera Mandrillus and Papio. When compared to the difference between macaques, however the divergence between them was less.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Furius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, December 20th, 2010 @ 08:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    Australian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Aussie
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    n/a
    Posts
    158
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Lions and tigers can interbreed, and they are considered as seperate species.
    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html However, according to this website http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html, only the females are known to be fertile.

    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/others3.html "There are several species of small wildcat which interbreed freely with feral or domestic house cats... The offspring of hybrid cats are fertile and continue to interbreed with each other and feral or domestic cats."

    Is this relevant to the human races??? Are we really different sub-species, or actually different species??? Now, there's an interesting question.

  6. #6
    Disinterested

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,401
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Furius
    Is this relevant to the human races??? Are we really different sub-species, or actually different species??? Now, there's an interesting question.
    Whats relevent to humans is the lack of a real distinction of a species.

    Jolly suggests "preoccupation with species definitions distracts attention from the real biological issues, and that it is more productive to shift the discussion to a less abstract level, focusing not on generating taxonomies but on gathering and interpreting the data on which all taxonomies are based, under any species definition. These essential facts of nature fall quite straightforwardly into two conceptually distinct categories: information about interbreeding (“zygostructure”), and information about the distribution of heritable characters, including genes (“phenostructure”). The two are functionally intertwined, in that present phenostructure is the product of past zygostructure (and therefore can be used to reconstruct it), and present zygostructure determines future phenostructure (which it can therefore predict)."

    He complains that use of the biological species concept means a tendency to "deemphasize the continuity in nature that, as Darwin recognized, is one of the most potent pieces of evidence for the evolutionary origin of species."

    The problem of defining a species "emerges most clearly in cases in which zygostructure and phenostructure do not coincide,and in which a widespread taxon includes a patchwork of physically distinct populations that interbreed where they meet." Such a situation exists in Homo sapiens.

  7. #7

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Furius
    Lions and tigers can interbreed, and they are considered as seperate species.
    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers.html However, according to this website
    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/ligers2.html, only the females are known to be fertile.

    http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/others3.html "There are several species of small wildcat which interbreed freely with feral or domestic house cats... The offspring of hybrid cats are fertile and continue to interbreed with each other and feral or domestic cats."

    Is this relevant to the human races??? Are we really different sub-species, or actually different species??? Now, there's an interesting question.
    Some older nomenclaturas define races as subspecies.

  8. #8
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, October 13th, 2006 @ 03:38 PM
    Subrace
    hmm
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    natural
    Posts
    242
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    The definition of what is a species is severely inadequate. It should be defined based on the criteria of whether two breeding populations can produce fertile offspring, with further sub-categories "sub-subcies" and "race" and "sub-race", (also noting hybrids, intermediates). Otherwise taxonomy and phylogeny is a bit subjective.

    That tigers and lions can produce fertile females and infertile males poses a unique philosophical issue. I would still classify the two as a single species but two sub-species.

    This also raises the question of whether that those fossil classifications (from dinosaurs to humans) are hogwash. I always thought it was BS how they classified everything to a tee. In terms of fossils, it's safer to just assign a species to a broad range.
    Last edited by Test; Friday, December 10th, 2004 at 05:53 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    ogenoct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, April 23rd, 2012 @ 06:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Moscow
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Politics
    National Futurism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    740
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Frans_Jozef
    Some older nomenclaturas define races as subspecies.
    This makes sense. It is the term I also use when talking to the non-initiated about the issue of race.

    Constantin

  10. #10
    New Member
    Rogala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, June 6th, 2006 @ 06:37 AM
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Humanist Catholic
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Genetic Reality of Race

    Where can I find the link you mention to:

    Plural Lineages in the Human mtDNA Genome


    I could not find it using the search system. Thanks in advance....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Reality of Race and 10 Fallacies of Race Denial
    By SuuT in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, September 16th, 2010, 08:49 AM
  2. The Biological Reality of Race [Glayde Whitney]
    By Haldís in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, July 13th, 2006, 05:26 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 02:41 AM
  4. Race: Reality and Denial, by McCulloch
    By Loki in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 06:44 AM
  5. The Reality of Race
    By Triglav in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, August 6th, 2004, 01:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •