18 May 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusYes it is. For example, the key lime and the Mexican lime are different races of Citrus x aurantifolia.
Speaking as a biologist, race is not a scientific term.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php
Species, now... that we can work with...
18 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThese are just artificial categories.
Yes it is. For example, the key lime and the Mexican lime are different races of Citrus x aurantifolia.
You need speciation to create truly distinctive groups.
(Yes, sometimes they use the term "race", but that's only when you talk about specific genes - and want a name for those who have the same alleles for those genes. Or so it was in all the cases I encountered so far)
19 May 08
2 edits
Well, I've learnt something today.
Race in humans does not exist in a biological sense.
If I wanted to choose a word to describe the differences between
an American and a Kenyan, I would be required to point out that
I was referring to the superficial hereditory phenotypes conditioned,
although not exclusievely, by environmental factors.
The closest I've found is ethnicity which takes into account accenstry,
language, culture, taste in music and preferred seasoning.
19 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Retrovirus"Speciation" isn't so clear cut either. For example, tiger and lion. Some ligers are fertile.
These are just artificial categories.
You need speciation to create truly distinctive groups.
(Yes, sometimes they use the term "race", but that's only when you talk about specific genes - and want a name for those who have the same alleles for those genes. Or so it was in all the cases I encountered so far)
What makes something an "artificial" catergory versus a "non-artificial" category as you imply species are?
19 May 08
2 edits
I'm curious, now that I have confirmed that there is no such thing as
a biological understanding of race. Ethnicity seems the only defining
factors between groups. Now, to my knowledge ethnicity is a self-imposed
characteristic by ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association.
So is it possible for a person of European descent to choose
by means of allegiance and association to be of Caribbean ethnicity?
19 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere does 'sub species' fit in?
The botanical term would be "variety", or possibly "genotype".
I don't know why so many people are pretending that races do not exist. It is quite obvious that they do. What may not be so obvious is that they are not clean edged but then neither are species, varieties or even shades of color. But the fact that you cannot always neatly assign an entity to a given race, species or shade of color does not mean that those properties do not exist or are unscientific.
It is important to note however that genetic variety within a race is greater than between races and that two different versions of a gene may be present across races, so it is conceivably possible for two people of different races to have more in common genetically than two members of the same race. One common mistake however is to confuse race as defined by skin color with race as defined by genetic variety or common ancestry. In Africa for example there a number of distinctive 'groupings' of people yet it is often assumed (unjustifiably) that because they all have dark skin they are closer to each other genetically than any one group is to say a European group.
19 May 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIn case you didn't notice, there is also no such thing as a biological understanding of ethnicity.
I'm curious, now that I have confirmed that there is no such thing as
a biological understanding of race. Ethnicity seems the only defining
factors between groups. Now, to my knowledge ethnicity is a self-imposed
characteristic by ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association.
So is it possible for a person of European descent to choose
by means of allegiance and association to be of Caribbean ethnicity?
You can still use race in the social understanding of the word.
19 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. Isn't it supposed to be true that there is more genetic variation within black Africans than there is within all non-African people? (Arising because humans originated in Africa and a relatively small number of them emigrated to populate the rest of the world).
It is important to note however that genetic variety within a race is greater than between races and that two different versions of a gene may be present across races, so it is conceivably possible for two people of different races to have more in common genetically than two members of the same race. One common mistake however is to confuse race as define ...[text shortened]... skin they are closer to each other genetically than any one group is to say a European group.
19 May 08
Originally posted by PalynkaThere is a biological understanding of something almost equivalent to race and ethnicity. There are specific differences genetically between people of different races or ethnic backgrounds. There are known medical trends and even medicines which are known to work better with specific races. As I said before, what we could call biological race or ethnicity might not however match exactly the common social groupings, and obviously in a racist environment where everyone is defined as either 'white' or 'colored' then it becomes a lot less based on general genetic characteristics but rather one specific set of genes - those relating to skin pigmentation.
In case you didn't notice, there is also no such thing as a biological understanding of ethnicity.
You can still use race in the social understanding of the word.
The article linked to by Retrovirus makes a number of false assertions including:
"The point is, for race to have any scientific validity and integrity it has to have generality beyond any one species. If it doesn't, the concept is meaningless."
"In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."
Notice that the second quote actually contradicts the first. He fist claims that race is only used for humans and therefore is unscientific then claims that race has a definite generally accepted definition which applies across species.
It is a fact that in any species if there are two groups with distinctive differences in skin color or other noticeable features we will identify them as distinct populations. Whether will call them different varieties, races or ethnic groups is a matter of convention, but the existence of the distinct groups with their attendant features is a matter of scientific fact.
19 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI tend to agree, twhitehead. I was just trying to show him that even if we accept it as true, then his line of reasoning still didn't make much sense.
There is a biological understanding of something almost equivalent to race and ethnicity. There are specific differences genetically between people of different races or ethnic backgrounds. There are known medical trends and even medicines which are known to work better with specific races. As I said before, what we could call biological race or ethnicity ...[text shortened]... of the distinct groups with their attendant features is a matter of scientific fact.
That said, I don't agree that there is a biological understanding of something almost equivalent to ethnicity, which is too much of a social and anthropological concept to be stripped down to something almost synonymous with what we usually call "race".
19 May 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOK, basically what I'm trying to do here is find a word that characterises
In case you didn't notice, there is also no such thing as a biological understanding of ethnicity.
You can still use race in the social understanding of the word.
the geographically isolated phenotypical variations that we see in the world.
I'm not trying to categorise where and when and why those variations occur,
just simply find a word that describes them. Is that too much to ask??
19 May 08
3 edits
Personally, I think comparing 'races' based on percentage similarity of
base pairing is retarded.
'There is no biological evidence for races in humans'
Which of the following two sentences has the most similar meaning to
the sentence above?
1) There is biological evidence for races in humans
2) There is no known biological evidence for races in humans
19 May 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOf course it's not too much to ask. Personally, I use the word race to describe them.
OK, basically what I'm trying to do here is find a word that characterises
the geographically isolated phenotypical variations that we see in the world.
I'm not trying to categorise where and when and why those variations occur,
just simply find a word that describes them. Is that too much to ask??
I just accept that a biologist might say that such phenotypical variations are not enough to justify another taxonomic division. Other species apparently present such degree of phenotypical variations and it's not considered necessary to create such divisions, so why should they do so for humans?
19 May 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree. In common usage Ethnicity often has more to do with religion and culture than common genes. I remember in "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins points out that it is frequently frowned upon to mention religious differences and that ethnicity is used instead.
That said, I don't agree that there is a biological understanding of something almost equivalent to ethnicity, which is too much of a social and anthropological concept to be stripped down to something almost synonymous with what we usually call "race".
In Africa, most countries have groups known as tribes and those are further grouped usually by language. It is often possible to tell a persons approximate tribe simply by looking at them. I can often tell which part of Africa a person comes from, and people who know a specific country can often identify the exact tribe. However, due to historical migration there are cases where two tribes are very similar despite being in very different geographical locations today. Also due to a significant amount intermarriage, the most recent generation may be a lot harder to place.