Pages

Thursday, January 30, 2014

"Lewontin's Fallacy" and Race

[Read before you post! If you comment with a rebuttal that has already been addressed either in the post or in the comments section, your comment will not be approved, and I will most likely bar you from future discussion. If you can't take the time to read the content you're responding to, then you're not welcome on my blog. This is your warning.]

[Note: Spawktalk a.k.a. Sean Last has written a rebuttal to this article for The Right Stuff. You can check it out here. I have opted not to reply since most of the points have been responded to in the comments section of this post, but I would still recommend reading his response, and I've written a reflection on our exchange here.]

I was going to make my next post a work by my father, but since this took me so long, and since my dad encouraged individuals to "do as they see fit, not as they are expected," I went ahead with this post anyway. This is something I've wanted to talk about for a very, very long time, but did not get a legitimate excuse to do so; so, a fair warning: In this post, I will not thoroughly explain the sources I cite (although I can by request), because this post will already take a long time. Instead, I'll include the in-text links as I usually do and continue with my explanation, unless it really is reliant on me to include details of the links I include.

A commenter on one of my other posts asked me a question in regards to something called “Lewontin’s Fallacy” in light of my page on the debate between Sam Owl and LaughingMan0X. In all honesty, in my research of anthropology (and in the nearly a year I’ve spent formally learning the facts), I’ve only ever seen "Lewontin’s Fallacy" mentioned in online arguments. I will still address it, but much more extensively than anticipated. This is a very complex subject, so in order to fully understand the nature of Lewontin’s findings on human genetic variation, I will need to explain the nature of the argument for racial classification for humans, and show why Lewontin, despite committing a fallacy, was actually correct, and where that takes us in the modern realm of anthropology. First, let’s identify what “Lewontin’s Fallacy” actually is, respond to it, and then we will get into the much broader topic. I do this only to satisfy the request of the commenter before rambling on in a subject he or she may not be concerned about looking into at the moment.

"Lewontin's Fallacy" was coined by A.W.F. Edwards in a paper criticizing Richard Lewontin's research in human genetic diversity, specifically his paper "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" from 1972. In this study, Lewontin used single locus analysis to find the fixation index score (or FST) for human beings; in other words, to find what degree of variation there is within human populations and between human populations. He stated that 15% of variation exists between populations, while 85% exists within populations. He concluded, based on this, that the proposal that human races exist is unscientific and meaningless.

A.W.F. Edwards
Edwards's argument was that because Lewontin only uses single locus analysis, he ignored what is largely the consideration for human genetic variation, which would be genetic clusters or multiple loci. By observing genetic clusters, you can find that there are correlations between racial categories and common geographic regions in some cases. Most people cite Rosenberg et al. (2002) or similar studies to substantiate this claim, but this is a gross misrepresentation of the data. Rosenberg et al. tested 1,052 people from 52 populations and used the data in a computer program called Structure. The program asks for a specified cutoff -- how many groups do the researchers want? The researchers actually, with the data they had available, could assign anywhere between 2 and 20 groups. Now, in one discussion I had over this topic, someone pointed out that this is actually a common problem in machine learning -- determining how many clusters are in a data set. This, however, only concedes to the point that genetic cluster analysis does not validate an objective definition of race, because you have to arbitrarily determine what the cutoff is, and what overlaps you're going to ignore in order to determine a degree of dissimilarity. Machine learning should not be the end of scientific inquiry, especially in these cases, because such results still retain a degree of arbitration; one that has to be discussed theoretically and via analysis. I'll get to this later. The 2002 study, if anything, is not evidence for biological race, but evidence that race is a social construction. In fact, in Rosenberg et al. (2005), they state: "Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of 'biological race.'"

The reality is, genetic variation exists at a continuum across geographic regions (meaning there are no discrete genetic categories). Many anthropologists stop here and say: "if there are no discrete categories, race cannot usefully be applied to humans." Many counter that this is a fallacy of the beard, but therein lies the problem that in human variation, there are no extremities.

"Fallacy of the beard" refers to an analogy about the status of one's beard. The argument would suggest that because you cannot assign a differential category between 100 hairs on a beard from 102 hairs, or so on, that statuses of beard lengths (can be simple as long/short, or can refer to things like five o' clock shadow) do not exist. The reason this is not the case is because beard lengths have extremities, such as being completely clean shaven, implying that while nominal in nature, the partitioning of such categories of beard status rely on the 'number of hairs' in a ratio level of measurement, where there is a meaningful zero (lack of any hairs). This cannot be done for human genetic variation.

Furthermore, for those of you who are looking to defend your stance on race using the information in this post, I would be very wary when people use this argument, because it's actually a clever strawman that you may not catch immediately. Here is another example of how the continuum fallacy goes, from the Wikipedia page:

Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
[...]
Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: No matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have a heap; therefore, heaps don't exist!

That last line is where the argument may slip you up. Anthropologists, by and large, do not take the position that race does not exist, but instead that race is subjectively classified, and relies more on the societal context you find it as opposed to any real biological differences. Race does exist, it's just subjective; therefore, arguing that this is a continuum fallacy is a strawman, and cannot be applied.

There are some important facts to note here. Although Lewontin drew his conclusion hastily from his premise (that because humans have more variation within than between populations, then races don't exist), genetic studies have upheld his findings for the most part. In fact, Lewontin's premise wasn't inaccurate at all. The average FST of humans does tend to be between 0.05 and 0.15 (although the Rosenberg study sets it at a smaller number, and the Excoffier/Hamilton study sets it at a larger number, the number I refer to is what is generally accepted and is not up for much debate). His "more variation within than between" finding continues to be echoed in the field of anthropology not for the conclusions that he drew, but for the fact that he did successfully fixate the populations of humans on the index. Lewontin's "fallacy" was not in the fixation index, but the conclusion he drew from it -- that races don't exist. No anthropologist really denies the empirical findings of Lewontin's research, but the debate over the existence of objectively defined human races still continues to this day.

There is variation. Now what?
The argument now is in the hands of anthropologists. There exists approximately 15% variation
between human populations, so what does this mean for race? Are these genetic differences significant or not? For the rest of this post, I will be applying the information I have mentioned above to a larger topic: the extent, the pattern, and the meaning of variation in modern humans, as well as historic attempts to understand this diversity. This will take a long time, so I encourage my readers to be patient and feel free to come to and from this post as frequently as what makes you feel comfortable.

Firstly, in terms of evolutionary time, 60 kya (about 60,000 years) is a very short time. That's the estimate that we generally use for the age of modern humans. Starting 60,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans began to expand and occupy every region of the planet, leading us to where we are today. The world is very ecologically diverse, and so various human populations encountered different ecological and climatic conditions. The extent of how far modern human migration has gone can easily be seen in places such as (let me use the expected example) Toronto. This type of diversity comes primarily from our current period of time.

Attempts to understand human diversity go back thousands of years. Yet, one of the first "scientific" attempts to classify humans according to their physical characteristics was by Carolus Linnaeus, who we now know as the founder of modern taxonomic classification. He invented the binomial classification system of genus/species that we continue to use to this day. Once again, this was an effort that goes back thousands of years. For this reason, it's very instructive to review Linnaeus's early classifications of humans based on their observable characteristics. In 1758, Linnaeus essentially used the following classifications and descriptions for each:

Americanus: reddish, choleric, and erect; hair black, straight, thick; wide nostrils, scanty bearrd; obstinate, merry, free; paints himself with fine red lines; regulated by customs

Asiaticus: sallow, melancholy, stiff; hair black; dark eyes; severe, haughty, avaricious; covered with loose garments; ruled by opinions 

Africanus: black, phlegmatic, relaxed; hair black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips tumid; women without shame, they lactate profusely; crafty, indolent, negligent; anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice

Europeaeus: white, sanguine, muscular; hair long, flowing; eyes blue; gentle, acute, inventive; covers himself with close vestments; governed by laws
 
Carolus Linnaeus
Already, it may have struck you that there are many issues with the Linnaen classification of humans. Firstly, he relies on superficial facial/cranial traits such as skin color, hair color, eye color, and so on. In addition, the broadly defined groups rely on the 18th century Eurocentric preconceptions of surrounding regions, with culturally loaded classifications as well. It is based on perception of the groups from that period of time, and from the perspective that Linnaeus had as a Swedish scientist. At the same time, as I noted to one of my professors, it seems that the Linnaen classification of humans may have been influenced by his experience as a botanist -- he categorized humans, as it seems, according to obvious physical characteristics, and then by attempting to observe how they interact with the environment they're found in. Feel free to disagree with this observation, but now, most of us (with the exception of Eurocentrics) see Linnaeus's classification as being pretty ridiculous, but it has taken us a long time to get where we are today in objectively analyzing the classification of human groups.

Similarly, in 1775, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach submitted his thesis for his M.D. entitled De generis humani varietate nativa (or, On the Natural Variety of Mankind). He is now considered to be the father of physical anthropology, and with good reason. Blumenbach, like Linnaeus, assigned to humans five categories representing their types:

Mongolian (yellow)
American (red)
Caucasian (white)
Malayan (brown)
Ethiopian (black)

In classifying these, Blumenbach used a more biological approach in contrast to Linnaeus. At the same time, Blumenbach rejected the notion of multiple human origins, and also rejected the notion of African inferiority from an anthropological perspective. He also recognized the continuous nature of human variation. This is why we consider him to be the father of physical anthropology: his findings have been the basis for studies in this field of science to this day. However, as I said, the classification of human races still remains in debate.

To understand this debate, we have to ask "what is race?" This can be problematic because the term means different things to different people; for some it has a strict biological meaning, for some a cultural meaning, and for some a combination of the two. Here, we will try to observe it strictly by its biological validity. There comes an issue, however: how can we define race in a narrow biological sense? Do these races exist in humans? Can race usefully explain the biological variation found in humans?

The term "race" was officially coined by Comte de Buffon, a French naturalist, in 1745, but one of the first scientists to use the term "race" in its modern context was the French physician and traveler Francois Bernier in his 1684 publication Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espèces ou races qui l'habitent, or New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it. Here we see that he used "species" and "race" as being somewhat synonymous, so how will we define it knowing what we do in the modern realm of anthropology?

AAA and others: thank you for your hard work.
Race could be defined as "unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups." It could also be defined as "a division of a species that differs from other divisions by the frequency with which certain hereditary traits appear among its members." Do either of these definitions apply to humans? If we use the former definition, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) made a statement on the existence of human races. In addition, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) made a statement as well. Lastly, the Human Genome Project (HGP), the largest and probably one of the most significant projects undertaken to decode the human genome, one which will be remembered in the scientific community for centuries, also released their statement on the existence of human race/ethnicity.

There are many reasons why the AAA, the AAPA and the HGP came to these conclusions. As we have established, races are, by definition, discrete and unambiguous units of classification which are used to explain variation which is mostly continuous in nature. It's important to note, before continuing, that evolution is very complex, and there are many different factors that can influence that variation. The variation in humans, and any species of animal, can be described with their interplay with evolutionary factors.

Consequently, racial classifications can't explain, in any meaningful way, the variation observed in human populations -- this is why there has never been any true agreement among anthropologists on the number of races, from three to several dozen. Before half of my audience pulls up their mouse and diverts to the comment section, this does not mean I am denying that there is biological variation in humans. As Relethford stated in 2002, "biological variation is real; the order we impose on this variation by using the concept of race is not." We are not all the same, the variation is undeniably there; however, creating descriptive categories for humans fails to explain the complex reality of human variation.

Let me use the example of skin pigmentation. There are simplistic views as alluded to above: red, yellow, white, brown, black. Then there is the more complex, realistic view: there is going to be a huge range of variation in skin tone, and there will inevitably be overlaps between groups. The traits that have traditionally been employed to classify humans in "racial" groups are anthropometric traits (primarily skin color, facial features, shape and size of head and body, underlying skeleton, etc. as shown by the Linnaen classification, for example). However, anthropometric traits are strongly influenced by the environment and are subject to natural selection, which may be acting in different ways for different traits. This being said, natural selection acts in specific genomes, thus different traits often shown remarkably discordant geographical distributions.

Once again, I will divert to skin pigmentation. In the bottom map, the darker regions have darker skin, and the shade gradually becomes lighter as you move north in latitude; in the top map, you see the distribution of the A allele in the ABO blood group. As you can see, the distribution of skin pigmentation is much different from the distribution of the A allele of the ABO blood group. When you think about it, this isn't all that surprising. Remember, there are multiple different factors driving allele frequency change; mutation, gene flow (and isolation by distance), genetic drift, natural selection, etc. To fully understand this, we need a brief overview of how this evolution works.

Genetic drift and gene flow are evolutionary factors which affect the entire genome. However, at the same time, forces such as natural selection affect only a subset of loci -- in the case of skin pigmentation, the genes involved in the synthesis of melanin. Thus, different traits (and at the genetic level, different loci) can have very different evolutionary histories. So if the concept of race doesn't work usefully for humans, how can we study, in a meaningful way, the biological variation observed in our species?

As detailed, the current study of human variation is an evolutionary one. We try to understand how different evolutionary factors have shaped the diversity of our species. This approach has to be very flexible, since there are many ways to proceed depending on which evolutionary questions we want to answer. Now, we will identify different ways anthropologists study human variation.

Some researchers study human variation at the level of local populations; for example, studies of the social structure and genetics of South American Indians of the rain forest. Other anthropologists study human variation at the level of global major geographic regions; for example, in the most relevant case of Lewontin, studying the patterns of variation within and between major continental groups. We will soon get into the significance of Lewontin's findings, but for now, let us consider two more examples.

Many anthropologists attempt to understand population history using as many traits as possible; for example, studies of gene flow in New World populations. Others are primarily interested in specific traits, trying to understand how evolutionary factors have shaped the variation in those traits in human populations. We have already discussed an example of this: the study of the distribution of skin pigmentation genes and their evolutionary history.

These are examples of the different ways in which anthropologists can study human variation. For decades, anthropologists have tried to answer two important questions related to this topic: what is the extent of variation in human populations, and how is this variation distributed (are there many differences between major geographic groups)? The answers to these questions can be found by studying our DNA.

In spite of the seemingly high variation observed in humans for some anthropometric traits (skin color, shape/size of head/body, etc.), humans show little-to-moderate variation at the genetic level, as alluded to earlier. It is particularly interesting to contrast the genetic diversity observed in humans with that of our closest relatives, the great apes. It turns out that at the DNA level (Y chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomes) humans are much less diverse than the great apes. Consider the chart on the right that I pulled from an anthropology textbook, illustrating the diversity that exists within our populations using Watterson's diversity estimator. It shows that at the genetic level, humans have a diversity level of about 7.5, while chimps lie at 24, gorillas 15, and orangutans 25. Why is there so little variation in humans compared to our hairy relatives?

As briefly mentioned earlier, most molecular anthropologists and human geneticists think that the low diversity observed in humans is due to our recent origin. Anatomically modern humans are a young species, so the level of diversity is relatively low. In addition, there is evidence indicating that humans went through a severe bottleneck in their history -- in other words, the human population was reduced to a few thousand people; however, not everyone agrees about the origins of anatomically modern humans (the very large consensus up until now has supported the Out of Africa hypothesis, but recently the multiregional hypothesis [not to be confused with the candelabra model] has found favor among many anthropologists, including myself; I won't get into this now, I simply wish to identify the two most significant sides of the debate).

But now that we've gone into general perspective of variation of humans, we can get into variation within and between, as promised. We have seen that at the genetic level, humans show less variation than the great apes. There are other important questions regarding human variation, however:

- How is the variation distributed?
- How much variation exists within our populations?
- How much variation exists between, particularly at the continental level?

For this, let's review the evidence at the DNA level and see if we can find an answer.

To measure variation within and between populations, the most common statistic is the fixation index, or FST. FST measures the amount of differentiation between groups or populations. An example is the picture shown on the left. It explains the basic mechanisms of calculating the variation between vs. within populations. In humans, there are few genetic markers that have huge genetic differences between populations.

Now, we move on to our guest of honor again. One of the first researchers to estimate the relative degree of genetic variation within and between human populations was Lewontin in 1972. Since his original study, many more have been carried out, using different methodologies and different genetic markers. All of these studies generally show that the percentage of genetic variation between continental groups is only a small percentage of the total variation -- most of the variation is found within populations. As stated earlier, numerous studies indicate that the percentage of genetic variation between continental groups only accounts for about 5% - 15% of the total. Again, this is probably due to the recent origin of our species, plus the effect that gene flow has had in shaping our genetic diversity.

But how do we interpret the results? How can we reconcile the obvious differences we observe in anthropometric traits between human populations with the low values observed at the genetic level? This, apparently, would be a contradiction, but it isn't so. Consider again the factors driving human evolution. Although most traits show very small differences between human populations, some traits can show large differences, particularly those subjected to strong diversifying selection. To help you understand this better, let's clarify some important points.

The estimate of variation between human populations (FST = 0.05 - 0.15) is an average value. The dispersion of FST values around the mean is wide. While the majority of markers show low FST values (FST = <0.15), some markers can have large FST values, and the results of such studies of genetic markers can and will vary. When you can, take a closer look at the FST distribution of
Only 2,750 markers, but you can still see the wide variation.
approximately 10,000 markers in the human genome. Remember, the reality is almost always more complex than we think. You can see that although most markers show small differences between human populations, the distribution around the mean is very wide. Some of the traits showing large differences between populations are the traits that have traditionally been used to infer racial classifications. Those traits do not represent the average picture at the genomic level, and thus even if we could somehow agree on racial classifications for humans, it would not be very meaningful, because it would not help us understand the large majority of human genetic variation.

Typological racial classifications do not capture the complex pattern of diversity found in human populations. Humans show low genetic diversity in comparison with great apes. Most of the genetic variation found in humans is within populations. In addition to mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection has also actively shaped our genome, so that for some markers and traits, the differences between populations can be larger than the average (diversifying selection), and for others, the differences may be smaller (stabilizing selection). We are only beginning to understand how these different evolutionary factors have shaped the diversity of our species, but as much as we understand, racial classification is not a useful way to help us to do this; thus, the topic of racial classification, although still much debated, tends to be pushed aside for more useful, productive discussions of explanations for the genetic variation we find in the human species.

In the end, Lewontin may have committed a fallacy by concluding all of this from the premises he had, but he ended up being right regardless.

Thank you for reading.

*For supplementary reading, I recommend looking at the module set by the General Anthropological Division of the American Anthropological Association: http://www.aaanet.org/committees/commissions/aec/gad_module_2.pdf

I would also recommend "Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation."



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir



ResearchBlogging.orgEdwards, A. (2003). Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy. BioEssays, 25 (8), 798-801 DOI: 10.1002/bies.10315  

Lewontin, R. (1972). The Apportionment of Human Diversity. Evolutionary Biology DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14

Rosenberg, NA. (2002). Genetic structure of human populations. Science.

92 comments:

  1. Wow, I wasn't expecting this much of an answer to my question. Thank you so much! Now I'm really looking forward to your post in regards to your political beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem! When considering your question, I had to consider all of the factors that go into it, and so here came my 2nd longest post ever (next to the debate page). If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me (contact info is in the "Contact the Author" tab).

      Delete
  2. "The reason this is not the case is because beard lengths have extremities, such as being completely clean shaven, implying that while nominal in nature, the partitioning of such categories of beard status rely on the 'number of hairs' in a ratio level of measurement, where there is a meaningful zero (lack of any hairs). This cannot be done for human genetic variation, and thus we cannot apply such a fallacy."

    You mean to say that human genetic variation lacks any specific extremities, right? I think Rushton argued against that claim in "Race, Evolution and Behavior." He claims that, by applying the r/k theory of ecology, you can partition humans into extremities despite the continuum, with black Africans being at one extremity, East Asians being at another, and white Europeans being somewhere in the middle.

    Comment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a giant comment typed up in response, and it just disappeared. I'm not gonna try to type it again, but I'll just say this:

      Rushton applied the r/k theory incorrectly, and his extremities are based on supposed evolutionary levels, not on the continuum of genetic variation. He provides no evidence of pleiotropic loci inferring an effect on the fitness of the human groups he arbitrarily categorized, no evidence of there being a predictable variability in the environments he examined (a requirement for r/k application), and no evidence that the behavioral traits he observed were genetic. You can read more about it from Joseph Graves's critique:

      http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf

      Delete
    2. r/K selection theory is outdated anyway, although it was really popular in the 70s and 80s. It was challenged by Yale professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Stephen Stearns and University of California professor of biology Derek Roff, both in books entitled the "Evolution of Life Histories."

      What's funny is that the books were published in 1992 and 1993 based on the most widely discussed findings in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology at the time, and from several years (even decades) prior. Challenges to r/K theory actually started coming about in the late 70s and early 80s. It was a finding which was, as Graves described it, "sort of like an elephant walking into your living room."

      Sometimes I wonder if Rushton is a Poe.

      Delete
    3. When I made my original long post, I mentioned that, and so did Graves in his paper. Yeah, I'm seeing a trend with outdated methodologies and beliefs with Rushton...

      Delete
  3. So you deny that a forensic anthropologist can look at genetic clusters and identify someone's race with nearly 100% confidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the difficulty of using "race" to classify human populations -- it means different things to different people. I'll try to explain this as best as I can.

      Human variation is clinal, meaning that it exists as a gradient across the earth and between continents, connecting them all as they gradually overlap each other at pretty much every instance. At the same time, historically, human populations on different continents have had a high rate of endogamy, meaning that they bred highly within their own groups and cultures, resulting in centers within these clinal variations. Because the gradients revolve around these centers, a forensic anthropologist can record allelic frequencies of certain gene clusters at these centers and use them as a reference when identifying a corpse, for example. This means that when observing the DNA of a corpse, a forensic anthropologist can usually give a statistical estimate of that corpse's probability of having primarily been from one of these centers, or somewhere near it.

      This can be very useful if you're comparing geographic locations (continents) which are very much separate from each other: such as comparing western Europe with sub-Saharan Africa with East Asia with Australia with the North and South Americas. These are what are traditionally used as the basis for racial classification, but that's not what forensic anthropologists are looking for.

      Essentially, when a forensic anthropologist identifies that a genetic cluster is closely correlated with one of these clinal centers, he or she can usually have a high rate of success in speculating what this individual's anthropometric traits were -- such traits are mostly the highest correlating factors to geographic region because they're mostly a result of natural selection. This, however, does not warrant racial classification, because while geographic location usually correlates with anthropometric traits, it does not explain the variation in other traits that aren't so obvious.

      This is what I meant when I said race doesn't explain the vast majority of variation between human beings. I acknowledge that there are genetic differences, mostly between these clusters of anthropometric traits, between continental clinal centers. This doesn't warrant the use of race as a classification, though. It just warrants the use of certain trait descriptions, like skin color or tooth shape.

      There is a big difference between geographic clinal centers and racial classifications, and this difference probably isn't intuitively obvious to people who haven't formally been taught anthropology or population genetics.

      So to answer your question: yes, I deny that forensic anthropologists can use genetic clusters to identify race with a high confidence level.

      No, I don't deny that forensic anthropologists can use genetic clusters to identify geographic origin (and by extension, probable anthropometric traits) with a high confidence level.

      Delete
    2. So what you're saying is that black skin, black hair, coarse hair, dark eyes, protruding jaw, etc. all highly correlate with being from sub-Saharan Africa, but we can't use that to label someone's race as being sub-Saharan African?

      Right.

      Delete
    3. One word.
      Negritos.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Great_Andamanese_couple.jpg/220px-Great_Andamanese_couple.jpg

      Delete
    4. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because it would be arbitrary and subjective to make those anthropometric traits the basis of our classification, because it's ignoring genetic traits that don't correlate so well.

      You mentioned black skin, but as I mentioned in my post, skin pigmentation is a gradient and is distributed in correlation with latitude, not continent. Skin pigmentation doesn't contain discrete categories anymore, and we haven't classified it as that in anthropology for a while now. We use a spectrophotometer now, which measures the percentage of light reflected off of a person's skin using the skin on the armpit (to avoid confusion because of tanning).

      This is just one example of distribution which doesn't correlate. Consider the frequencies of different alleles of the ABO blood group. Height, as well, does not always correlate.

      It also depends on what you're observing to measure the differences. SNPs? Alu insertions? RFLPs? At the same time, by using different gene clusters, and using either bigger or smaller numbers of genes, the correlation can vary greatly. Consider the example I gave of the mapping of 2,750 SNPs to determine FST. Some SNPs had higher variation than others. Genetic variation is complex at every turn, and a single category to describe a vast population of people in a broad geographic location is not practical or useful in terms of anthropology.

      To arbitrarily decide "these anthropometric traits are what we will use to define race" completely misses the point of animal classification. I could do much the same thing using the maps I showed in my post. I could say, for example, that since populations with a 10-20% frequency of the A allele of the ABO blood group and people with a 12-18 on the von Luschan chromatic scale tend to correlate, we could separate those people into their own population. What you would get, as a result, is one "race" that encompasses Russia, China, and Kazakhstan essentially. But those traits aren't exclusive to those populations, and it ignores correlates of other traits as well.

      Once again, race doesn't explain the majority of human genetic variation.

      Delete
  4. So what you're saying is that you don't classify humans by race, but you would classify them by skin color, eye color, etc.? That just seems like you're playing a semantics game to avoid being wrong.

    Moreover don't egalitarians think discrimination based on the color of someone's skin is waaaycissst?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This bait-and-switch ordeal isn't going to work, because unlike you, I acknowledge the difference between observed characteristics (that person has light skin, or, that tree has red leaves) and entire biological categories (that person is "Caucasoid" or "White," or, that tree is a maple). We can observe physical characteristics to describe a human being much the same way we can do so for trees, birds, cars, islands, etc. This doesn't mean that these physical characteristics warrant a biological classification. Classification and characterization are two entirely different things. I characterize based on observed traits for practical purposes. I don't classify people based on those traits, because that ignores underlying traits that they share in common with people who don't share their anthropometric traits.

      Your second sentence is wrong for two reasons. One, your assumption -- I'm not an egalitarian. In my post I fully acknowledged that humans have genetic variation both within and between them; that it exists. We're not all the same, and we can't help that. That doesn't mean I classify people based on their differences, because biologically, it doesn't serve a purpose.

      Secondly, I don't discriminate based on someone's skin color. I characterize them because they show an easily identifiable trait.

      All in all, using the buzzword "egalitarian" while trying to bait me into agreeing with you isn't a sufficient argument.

      Delete
    2. And why can't we categorize based on gene clusters that correlate with the racial categories we have? Why can't we base it off of physical traits?

      We do that for dogs. Pugs have curly tails, round heads, etc. Huskies have different characteristics. We base our categories off of their physical traits, not off of their underlying genes. What makes humans so special?

      Oh right, because if we admit that "race" is real in humans, we admit that some have been selected for things like greater intelligence........ and liberals like you would NEVER do that!

      Delete
    3. We can categorize using gene clusters... categorize by probable geographic history. Otherwise, you're begging the question:

      You: We use these physical traits for racial categories.
      Me: But why use those physical traits when it neglects the majority of genetic variation in humans?
      You: Because those physical traits correlate with our racial categories.

      Your reasoning was based on your premise.

      And yes, we do that for dogs, but dogs (at least the ones we have documented) have been selectively bred by humans for generations to have the traits we desire. The existence of dog breeds is primarily reliant on two things:

      1: The traits we selected for them; and,
      2: How long those traits have been around.

      So to base our classification of dog breeds based on those traits is just to acknowledge why dog breeds exist in the first place. Humans are nothing like dog breeds in that we were not selectively bred like dogs were. Aside from that, dog breeds have an FST high enough that might warrant the classification of a new species (around 0.25).

      Maybe I should make a list of common arguments race realists make that are just too old:

      - Any comparison to dog breeds.
      - "Gene clusters."
      - Forensic anthropologists and their identification of races.

      Delete
    4. Actually, the FST of dog breeds is only 0.154, while the difference between whites and blacks is 0.23. I don't have the time or desire to get into this now, but I'd suggest you read through this page and its sources to educate yourself, since it seems you have no idea what you're talking about:

      http://arkaimcity.tumblr.com/post/60703131771

      Delete
    5. I'm familiar with this blog. I had a good laugh reading through it. What you said is a very good example of why.

      Line: "The FST between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23."
      His source: http://www.genetics.org/content/105/3/767.abstract

      Open that link and on the right, go to "Full Text (PDF)." It'll take you to the full study, which is "Estimation of the Coancestry Coefficient: Basis for a Short-Term Genetic Distance." Now, ctrl+f and look for "white," "black," "bantu," and "british." You find no results.

      Now ctrl+f and look for "human." You find one single reference of it being used for humans in another study.

      The coancestry coefficient isn't the same thing as FST. Coancestry correlation attempts to find the probability of two alleles, being sampled at random from each individual, will be identical to an ancestral allele. FST measures genetic variation between populations based on genetic structure. The former isn't even relevant.

      His second source just speaks to his ignorance of population genetics. The study observes 213 animals, calculating the global FST of 11 East Asian dog breeds. This is nowhere near a good comparison to human populations.

      Superior studies have been done on the variance of dog breeds. One such study is entitled "Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication," which was published in Nature in 2010, conducted by a team of 35 researches. The team conducted a genome-wide survey of over 48,000 SNPs, extracted from a panel of 912 animals from 85 different breeds. An Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) showed that 65.1% of variation was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds and 3.8% between their identified breed groups.

      Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08837.html

      Another study to look at is "Genetic Structure of Purebred Domestic Dog," conducted in 2004 by Parker et al. and published in Science. This study observed 410 dogs correctly assigned to their breeds and found using AMOVA that 27% of genetic variance is between breeds. They calculated an FST of 0.33 between breeds.

      Source: https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/kruglyak/publication/PDF/2004_Parker_Genetic.pdf

      If you're really interested in human genetics, I'd suggest not reading the bibliographies of people who take "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" to heart. I say this because if you look at every line he states on that page, you'll find a link to that book, which was notorious for cherry-picking evidence that supports the author's ideas, using sources that are not scientific at all (such as citing pictures of a black, white and Asian male and comparing them to the face of a chimp to say "blacks are more genetically similar to chimps than any other race"), and overall just being ridiculous.

      Thanks for the laugh, but I have class in 50 minutes, so I bid you good luck.

      Delete
    6. >>Humans are nothing like dog breeds in that we were not selectively bred like dogs were<<

      You ignore thousand years of separation among human races on different continents and as result it was selected breeding. Even negroid in Africa are different among themselves.

      Delete
    7. Yes, being separated for any amount of time is bound to produce some differences.

      Humans, however, in evolutionary terms, are a very young species. You throw out the statement "we've been separated for thousands of years!" without actually understanding what that implies in terms of evolution. All that says is that modern humans as diverged populations are incredibly young, therefore the differences between us are probably minimal. And besides that, humans aren't even geographically isolated anymore -- and considering that modern humans came from Africa -- it's a stretch to say that we were ever geographically isolated to begin with, we were just split culturally.

      No, humans were not selectively bred. Humans practiced endogamy, which resulted in typical ancestral lines. Dogs were bred with their brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, etc. to produce specific traits that were good at performing specific tasks. This is, also, a process that has been going on for "thousands of years," except in dogs, the differences are now very clear.

      Yes, and people in every part of the world are different among themselves. These aren't things that I haven't acknowledged, they're just things that don't provide evidence against my claims.

      Delete
    8. I don't think evolutionary gradualism is correct, despite the common perception of evolution taking eons. Vast changes for organisms and evolutionary divergences can happen very, very quickly. I believe it was even observed for finches, if The Beak of the Finch isn't a hoax of a book. Humans being separated for sixty thousand years seems like more than enough time for quite a few differences to come into existence. Given this, I'd disagree that "differences between us are probably minimal." This is, of course, not talking about already observed differences, which seems to put the cart before the horse when it comes to discussing theories. Trying to explain it away as all social constructs, cultural pressures, or oppression seems a bit waffley and un-intellectual to me, given that no one's actually been able to prove any of those.

      What's this argument about humans not being geographically isolated — and implying that the differences between human groups is therefore minimal — for? Directly after claiming that evolution had to happen gradually, too. Unless you think that interracial breeding just took off in popularity as soon as it was possible, arguing that our recent (and I mean very recent) ability to overcome geographic isolation would somehow wash away all between-group differences doesn't really seem to be a sensible position.

      "[…]it's a stretch to say that we were ever geographically isolated to begin with, we were just split culturally." I'm fairly certain human groups were pretty isolated geographically since their migration from Africa; I'm also fairly certain that we were isolated enough for between-group mixing to be fairly minimal for much of that time. I find it incredibly hard to believe that humans were mixing all the way from sub-Saharan Africa, to Northern Scandinavia, to Eastern Siberia, to the American and Australian continents enough for between-group differences to be eliminated to the extent that you claim.

      I also don't get what all this arguing about selective breeding is about. Humans weren't selectively bred, sure, but that doesn't in any way imply that it is impossible for humans to have evolved different psychologies, physiologies, and behaviors. You don't need to be selectively bred to have evolution pressure you into change, after all.

      On a bit of a tangential note, why do you seem to believe that all genetic variances are created equal? It strikes me as odd that you tacitly seem to believe this, citing greater genetic difference as though it were synonymous with greater difference. "More genetic variation within groups than between" doesn't imply that actual differences between groups are small or insignificant. After all, single gene mutations can have vast effects on organisms, to say nothing of groups or clusters of them.

      I have to commend you for going on as you have. This is a topic ripe for accusations and general stupidity from both sides, so much so that most people would have thrown up their hands and walked away. It's nice to see you responding to these in good faith.

      Delete
    9. Hello Anon, thanks for commenting. I'll respond by paragraph.

      Yes, some evolutionary changes can happen quite quickly. In regards to the finches I distinctly remember that their rapid evolution had something to do with a protein which causes skeletal features to develop in the embryo. In regards to humans it can be many things. I believe I've spoken of Franz Boas's studies of immigrant skull shapes. Those can change in a matter of a single generation. But while such developments in humans have more to do with recent adaptations that occur as a result of the environment (diet), the finches were a genetic adaptation. I realize that given enough pressure such differences could appear in humans, but that's why this post was supplemented with data. There's also a host of it available in the comments, which I'd encourage you to read if you have the time. Given the information, it really is the case that our differences are minimal. I did, however, not attempt to explain it all away socioculturally. As I quote very often, there are very potent genetic differences among individual human beings, but how we have traditionally partitioned the races is just not the best way to observe this.

      On geographic isolation, it's actually much more of an ecological claim, but in regards to genetics our species has never fit a model of isolation. 25% of our genetic variation is inexplicable using an isolation-by-distance model. Some is explained via a serial founder effect, some a nested populations model, etc. The final answer really is that human evolution is too complex to root it down to, as the first commenter put it, "thousand years of separation among human races on different continents and as result it was selected breeding." That's far too simple to capture the reality of human genetic variation. Even following an isolation-by-distance model, human genetic variation is largely continuous in nature, as one would expect of neighboring populations. I wasn't attempting to suggest that the genetic variation that resulted from geographic isolation is already gone, but that isolation doesn't account for the vast majority of it.

      I've addressed this for the most part in my previous paragraph, but I'll try to elaborate a bit. You're correct that we were pretty isolated and dispersed to a short limit after the first migration from Africa, however the history of human evolution is rife with several migrations from Africa, back-migrations to the point of origin and everywhere in between, and a pretty substantial amount of intermixing. This is revealed by the data I referenced earlier, where observing genetic variation under an isolation-by-distance model, we see that due to endogamy, human populations are identifiable not just at the level of continents, but at the level of very small tribes. The problem here is that there is such substantial gene flow between these populations that we see that a lot of human genetic variation exists at a continuum.

      The argument about selective breeding was only in response to the commenter comparing us to dogs. That's all. This is actually a fairly common argument I encounter, and so the reply is nearly automatic.

      I don't believe genetic variances are created equal - in fact, in the last figure in the article, you can see the wide dispersal of scores along the fixation index for different genetic markers. We're speaking of several things here, however. What is the average? For the outliers, what is their cause? Is this overwhelmingly a result of evolutionary forces from differing populations, or something else? Are they old or recent? Do they disappear when we observe different genetic material? The list goes on and on.

      Thank you, and thank you for replying. I've actually nearly abandoned this topic as my real life has greatly imposed on my ability to update this blog at all, but it's nice to know the discussion is still open. I hope you got the answers you were looking for!

      Delete
  5. "And why can't we categorize based on gene clusters that correlate with the racial categories we have? Why can't we base it off of physical traits?"

    You surely must be joking.

    The erroneous classification of numerous organisms due to judgment on APPEARANCE led to the eventual eradication of early cladistics.

    I.E., the same original system which incorrectly categorized Barnacles as Bivalves.
    Currently, our taxonomic systems are poised to be replaced entirely by classification on genomic expression.

    Learn to Biology.




    ReplyDelete
  6. "If you're really interested in human genetics, I'd suggest not reading the bibliographies of people who take "Erectus Walks Amongst Us" to heart. I say this because if you look at every line he states on that page, you'll find a link to that book, which was notorious for cherry-picking evidence that supports the author's ideas, using sources that are not scientific at all (such as citing pictures of a black, white and Asian male and comparing them to the face of a chimp to say "blacks are more genetically similar to chimps than any other race"), and overall just being ridiculous."

    Evidence for this? Erectus Walks Amongst Us is one of the most unbiased books on paleoanthropology one could possibly find because it is so outside the taboo that you wouldn't be able to find any of its facts in mainstream science. The fact that you accused it of being "ridiculous" just says you haven't even read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you're right about one thing: it's definitely outside of mainstream science. Far outside. So far outside of it, in fact, that in my university's library database, I couldn't find a single article or review referring to it for any purpose whatsoever -- even for the purposes of refuting it. So far outside of it that Richard D. Fuerle (the author) isn't even a paleoanthropologist; he's a retired patent lawyer, and the only patent document I can find with his name on it is one for a continuously variable diameter drive wheel. Yes, it seems mainstream science has left this work of comedic art completely unheard of, let alone touched.

      In fact, I have read it, Anon. The reason I was so quick to respond to both you and the person I mentioned the book to is because I quickly recognized exactly where the claims were coming from, because I had seen them before. Aside from the fact that a large portion of his claims are either not sourced or improperly sourced, tell me something:

      If this book is supposedly an unbiased "must read" piece in the field of paleoanthropology, why does the last chapter suggest practicing eugenics? If it's unbiased, why does he make policy recommendations?

      With all of these things combined, nobody who is serious about their research is going to refer to this book for anything more than a hearty laugh at its interminable bullshit.

      Delete
  7. You talked about the FST of dogs, but that doesn't matter at all. The mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes is less than that of different human ethnic groups, but we consider dogs, wolves and coyotes to be different species while humans are all said to be from the same species. How is this possible in the strict biological sense?

    "there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings"

    http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Domestic_Dog.html?id=I8HU_3ycrrEC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To say that the FST of dog breeds "doesn't matter at all" speaks to the fact that you're not at all interested in genetics -- just trying to convince people that different races exist.

      And to use the example of mtDNA variation as your argument even more so speaks to your own ignorance of the subject matter. As I mentioned in an earlier post, modern humans up until the past few hundred years were very much endogamous, resulting in certain populations diverging separately from others in evolutionary terms. This does not reflect the situation with the three animals you mentioned.

      Consider a frequently cited study by Lehman et al. in 1991 entitled "Introgression of coyote mitochondrial-DNA into sympatric North-American Gray Wolf populations." In this study, the researchers collected the mtDNA genotypes of gray wolves and coyotes were collected using RFLPs. They found that of the 13 identified mtDNA genotypes, 7 were clearly of coyote origin, noting the fact that in nature, coyotes and wolves are quite interfertile. This extends to the domestic dog since the dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf.

      In these populations, mtDNA is inherited exclusively from the mother to the daughter, thus when such interbreeding occurs in the wild, you'll find that there is little phylogenetic difference. Humans inherit mtDNA in the same manner, thus when you have two groups -- one endogamous, one interfertile -- which do you expect will have greater variation to the extent of mtDNA?

      What is interesting is that after preparing this response, I looked at that book you cited and found the page where you took the quote from. This is also something that was on the Tumblr page refuted earlier, and it's spouted as evidence for the existence of races among humans. This truly is disgusting, first of all, because this book seems to be incredibly educational in explaining the genetic variance of dogs and their related species, yet the most common references to it are in support of something unrelated and unnecessary. I'll probably buy the book and read it through for this reason alone.

      Now, the actual relevance is that on the very same page where that quote occurs in the book, the author continues as I did, brackets are my own inclusion:

      "To keep the results [of the genotyping of breeds of dogs] in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as belonging to a single species. The results are not surprising since, reproductively, wolves, coyotes, jackals and dogs are interfertile, and cross-breeding still occurs in the wild between wolves, coyotes and dogs."

      The extent of quote mining conducted by the opposition is appalling.

      Delete
  8. The only time race "fails" in an experiment is when not enough loci are used, like in the case of Lewontin's fallacious experiment. As soon as thousands of loci are sampled, your fancy wordplay of "geographic populations" or whatever words you used, which is just petty semantics, can be assigned with an almost 100% certainty to certain clusters that are, surprise surprise, painfully close (identical) to the traditional concept of human races. In fact, you can more accurately guess a person's race (call it a geographical variation, whatever your liberal heart desires and whatever lets you sleep at night) than you can their sex:

    Neil Risch: "we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism."

    There is more variation between human races than there is between a male and a female. And even the inventor of Fst, Sewall Wright, said that anything over Fst = 0.05 is a significant difference. So you can't simply ignore a Fst of 0.15 among humans and pretend it's insignificant. Not only that, there have been animals that have been assigned the status of a different subspecies with a fixation index of as low as 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, etc.

    And the existence of clines and therefore no absolutes does not at all somehow magically disprove the concept of race, what utter nonsense. Does that mean there is no colour red or colour blue, because they are both part of the same colour spectrum? Does that mean because there is one very tall person, one very short person and one medium person, the tall person is a social construct and that height does not exist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vast majority of this consists of things that I've already addressed either in my post or in the comments section, but I'll reluctantly address it all again.

      Lewontin's experiment was not fallacious, it was a "pilot experiment" which led to confirmation by multiple other researches via different methodologies. Once again, the fact that certain gene clusters correlate with geographic clinal centers does not warrant the labeling of "race," it simply notes that people in different areas of the word were affected by natural selection. This fact alone doesn't warrant entirely different classifications, because depending on which loci you observe, you are going to get significantly different results on the variance (this is something I mentioned in my post).

      You quoted from an interview with Risch, but cited no actual study to be examined; however, you make a flawed mistake in this comparison between race and gender, and I've already dealt with this multiple times, so I'll just quote from one of my previous refutations of it.

      The Y chromosome contains 50 million base pairs, while the entire human genome contains around 3200 million base pairs -- so based on the difference of their chromosomal sets, men and women have about a 1.57% genetic difference. On the contrary, if you take a man from one continent and a man from another, they're going to have (for the most part) the same genes, just different alleles.

      The measurement of genetic variation between human populations and the genetic variation between human genders are entirely different; when we observe between population differences, we are looking at differences in mitochondrial DNA, variants of genes on the Y chromosome, or autosomes, because these give the most accurate idea of how the different populations evolved via the forces of genetic drift, gene flow, mutation or natural selection. We measure the differences between males and females by observing the differences between their chromosomes and by observing for reproductive selection. The evolutionary history of different populations of humans is much different from the evolutionary history of different genders.

      You've taken the phrase "significant" out of context here. An FST of over 0.05 is statistically significant, i.e. very unlikely to be a result of mere chance. I never said that the FST between races is statistically insignificant, I said that it doesn't warrant the classification of race by the traditional definition of subspecies, and that this variation is very small compared to our relatives.

      As for your examples of different subspecies, you didn't cite any examples or sources, so I'll just assume you're throwing out a generality that you don't understand. Generally, an FST of 0.15 is required to classify subspecies; however, if there exists two populations that have diverged so separately and for such long periods of time, yet somehow they don't have a significant enough FST, they can still be classified as different subspecies. Modern humans have existed, in evolutionary terms, for a very short amount of time, so it's much more difficult for humans. This is something, as well, that I mentioned in my post.

      I addressed the accusation of a continuum fallacy already as well, and as oddly relevant as it is, I discussed skin pigmentation. In addition, from an anthropological standpoint, height isn't too useful because being "tall" or "short" highly depends on what area you're from -- so yes, it is a social construct.

      Seriously, read before you post.

      Delete
    2. "There is more variation between human races than there is between a male and a female. "

      Yes, I have less in common with an individual that I share an ENTIRE chromosome with, and additionally carry the same inability to form Barr Bodies.

      Surely.
      I'm not sure you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds.
      Alexis, I give you props for even entertaining their discussion.

      Delete
    3. Sometimes the debate warrants clarification. A lot of these folks are coming from one link where the poster says my contention with race is primarily on account of the small amount of genetic variation (in terms of FST). This is hardly an accurate or fair way to interpret my views, but what can I expect from somebody who is more in tune with their political motivations than their scientific objectivity (yes, Undercover Lover, everyone knows you're a BUGster and not a scientist).

      I feel it's necessary, then, to entertain these arguments because it seems that the posters are at least... somewhat unfamiliar with my line of reasoning? They come here expecting one thing and get something else.

      But more importantly, I encourage discussion. My blog isn't solely about race, science, or any one topic for that matter. If I post something, it's for discussion and information, not dictation. However I won't show much remorse for people who entertain the works of people like Fuerle.

      Long response to a simple commendation, but thank you, I suppose.

      Delete
    4. No worries, discussion is good, though I do wonder why the horde continues to flood down.
      You're very welcome.

      Delete
  9. This blog post is laughable. I love how you try and "poison the well" by saying that discussion of The Lewontin Fallacy is only found "online"; you're trying to paint the argument as illegitimate.

    Quote straight from Dawkin:

    "It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inferene that race is therefore a meaningless concept. This point has been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in a recent paper “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy.” R.C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possibile opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles"

    Let me re-quote a part of that for gravity:

    "Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity."

    Kind of reminds me on the person behind this anti-White blog.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: I said I had personally never heard of it anywhere but online. In my studies, we never looked into The Ancestor's Tale or into A.W.F. Edwards's work because Lewontin's Fallacy was not in his research, but in the conclusions he drew from them.

      If you actually read my post, I mentioned A.W.F. Edwards's paper. I don't exactly know what you're trying to get at -- it seems because you've failed to read my post, everything went over your head.

      Delete
  10. Lewontin's experiment was a "pilot experiment," but it turned out to be fallacious, as shown by Edwards. There is no arguing against that.

    "Once again, the fact that certain gene clusters correlate with geographic clinal centers does not warrant the labeling of "race," it simply notes that people in different areas of the word were affected by natural selection."

    In other words, they evolved differently, but we shouldn't be calling them different races anyway because liberals get butthurt... Great argument against race, no doubt. You can call them populations, I'll call them race - same thing.

    The argument that because there is more variation in the human genome that has absolutely nothing to do with race, it somehow, like with clines and the colour spectrum analogy, magically disproves the fact of race is utter nonsense. Does that mean there is no solar system because there is a whole galaxy and universe behind it?

    Population genetics and their cluster analyses show time after time the scientific reality of race, the only difference is some of the scientists prefer to call them "populations," "ancestry," blah blah blah, which is, like I said, just petty semantics and trying to be politically correct. Like I said, I don't care which fancy word you try to use that lets you sleep at night, at the end of the day, population genetics speak for themselves, and your fancy euphemisms are nothing but PC ways of saying race.

    http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fsthe3.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His experiment wasn't fallacious, the conclusions he drew were fallacious. Again, read my post.

      Yes, some people "evolved" differently from others. I say this because humans are still evolving, and it seems we will be for some time to come. Again, this doesn't warrant biological classification beyond the point of subspecies. "Race" and "geographic population" are not the same thing. The significance of studying geographic populations is in observing the population's interaction with its environment. The significance of studying racial classifications is in how it encompasses the majority of the genetic variance between the different groups. Once again, read my post.

      "Does that mean there is no solar system because there is a whole galaxy and universe behind it?" -- This would be a good analogy comparing the classification of race to subspecies to species to etc. In biology, scientists classify organisms in such a way that they can usefully observe those organisms without overlooking much of the important details in doing so. The fact that you neglect much of human diversity in favor of certain gene clusters which correlate with your preconceived classification of "races" reflects the fact that you don't care about actually examining human diversity. You just care about dividing people up.

      I call them geographic populations for a reason. You still fail to see that reason.

      I'd suggest that the next time you try to instigate arguments such as this online, you be prepared, and you use primary sources for your claims.

      Delete
  11. "The significance of studying racial classifications is in how it encompasses the majority of the genetic variance between the different groups."

    There is no such thing as "studying racial classifications." The closest thing to that is population genetics.

    Regarding the populations!=races nonsense, here is what the co-author of the 2002 Rosenberg study has to say:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/us/gene-study-identifies-5-main-human-populations-linking-them-to-geography.html

    "Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like ''population structure'' and ''self-reported population ancestry.''

    But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race."

    Or how about Risch et al. from 2002:
    "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American."

    I think I'll take the words of race realists and population geneticists over yours, thank you very much.

    "This would be a good analogy comparing the classification of race to subspecies to species to etc."

    Yes, and the conclusion would be that one can properly classify human beings into distinct biological races, regardless of the fact that the majority of the variation in the human genome has nothing to do with race: the same is true for every organism and subspecies, so making an issue over it for humans is purely political, not scientific.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't study racial classifications? Well then. I didn't say it was a common field of discourse, I said it was a manner of looking at things.

      Once again, a tertiary source doesn't suffice as an argument. A newspaper article is bound to promote the controversy, not discuss the study itself. However, thank you for giving me more reading material (the study they're referring to). At an initial glance, though, I'm beginning to note the purpose of the "groupings" -- that we can identify someone's geographic history by examining their genes. This is something I already talked about in my post and comments.

      You referred to Risch et al. (2002) but gave no details of how the study was conducted, details of the sampling, and so on. I'll have to go through that study too, but based on what has been posted here so far, I don't think I'll find much of anything besides either quote mining or lack of understanding of the study itself.

      "I think I'll take the words of race realists-" Hah, that's more of a political statement than a scientific one, considering it seems you're what you would call a "race realist."

      "-and population geneticists" Then you're going to have to be pretty selective of what population geneticists you take the word of, because many will disagree with your beliefs.

      No, that wouldn't be the conclusion, because if geography can explain the traits you're observing to assign racial classifications, then the classifications aren't of much importance since we already have a term and discourse for that. It doesn't warrant "race," though, because humans aren't geographically isolated, and gene flow has resulted in a gradient which can be misconstrued by sampling bias.

      And if you think it does warrant racial classification, then your classifications may well be pretty arbitrary because of other correlates one could find.

      I seem to be repeating myself quite frequently now, so if you find that your comments aren't going through, it's because I've already clarified myself and the ad nauseam is getting ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. I groaned when I finally found the study referred to in the New York Times article you linked. I referred to that specific study in the early paragraphs of my post, noting that genetic clusters can be used to identify geographic ancestry.

      Seriously? I'm especially not going to entertain these discussions if you refuse to even honestly read through my post. That's just stupid.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, I couldn't refrain from putting in my two cents any longer:
      ""populations," "ancestry," blah blah blah, which is, like I said, just petty semantics"

      So, what you're saying is, a POPULATION of species can be equated with an invented taxonomic category such as race?
      Interesting.
      Even more interesting, is the fact that the true definition of a population escapes you.

      A population is a collective group of organisms of the same SPECIES (Note: SPECIES) and, as Alexis said, progresses into the next taxonomic level, which is an ecosystem.

      Ironically, you attempting to equate the two would mean that you consider all humans withing a selective geographic area, regardless of origin...to belong to the same population, or, albeit a stretch, attempting to equate the entire collective species of Homo Sapiens with "Racial" classifications.

      I'm not sure if it's the absence of basic biology curriculum, or your obvious disingenuous nature, but the whole Community, Population, Ecosystem deal is quite literally Freshman level Biology.

      Not to mention that if you were to construct the slightly more feasible argument that population=geographical location, you would also be indulging upon the same, constructing the definition of a population to be directly correlated with a Continent, as you previously insituated by (I suppose, as I have not read the text) quote mining.

      Surely "Race Realists" are educated enough to not generalize continents as homogeneous masses.
      My advice to you: Before you utilize "Intelligent" sounding terms, ensure you comprehend their usage.

      "In other words, they evolved differently, but we shouldn't be calling them different races "
      In the most easy to comprehend terms, I'm not sure you comprehend the implications of a genetic bottleneck.
      There is not a single human alive today who has diverged far enough from his/her lineage to be considered to posses a lack of relation; and that is simply the tip of the iceberg.

      Stay Classy, Stormfront.

      Delete
    4. My mistake which, I've just noticed:
      My statement should have read "progresses into next..which include"
      Just a minor clarification.

      Delete
  12. This is the deal. The straw-man is that 'race' must refer to completely and absolutely discrete and fixed groups, with zero gradiance or overlaps inbetween. Of course, this is false (for every single taxonomical classification). The cognitive dissonance is presented well by this box of letters and colours:¨

    http://i.helgon.se/g/%7B61E/%7B61EFD13A-CFBF-4CAA-9974-0BEC0E3AEC86%7D.jpg

    The link above is to an image that explains this "conundrum" very well. The author of this blog-article argues that human variation needs to be neatly divided like in the example 'X' in order for the term "race" to be valid. Like I said, this is false because that is not how we define or use the term for any animal or lifeform. No, X is how we (very roughly) expect 'species' to come across (and even then, it often does not apply). As a counter-argument to this straw-man, they are claiming (as seen in the article's text) that Y is the scenario of a "continuum" that applies to human variation. Again, this also is false. The real scenario, based on every single study of our ancestral markers and observed clusters, is example 'Z'. Therefore, 'race' is a reasonable and accurate convention for the purpose of classification of human populations. It all boils down to semantics about the stigmatic "sound" of the term race, when modern terms like "biogeographical groups/populations/ecotypes" match up almost exactly to the classifications of older racial anthropologists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm familiar with the post you made on the delivering thread. There are a few issues with what you did:

      1) You used a picture to explain the issue in a very Dr. Oz-esque manner, but failed (also in a Dr. Oz-esque manner) to give direct and relevant information for your case.

      2) Your claim that the continuum is represented by image Z is most likely on the sampling illusion I mentioned in my post.

      3) The clusters you mention are, as I said, arbitrary in determining race.

      4) "based on every single study of our ancestral markers and observed clusters" -- This is a sweeping assertion, and while I would normally ask you to quantify these "ancestral markers" and "observed clusters," I'm afraid I have no interest in furthering a discussion with yet another person who has ignored the totality of arguments I've made in both my post and my comments.

      The arguments you're proposing are just reworded versions of arguments that have already been addressed, both by me and the American Anthropological Association, as the information produced in my post was largely influenced by the modules set out by the General Anthropological Division of the AAA. You may find the modules useful, or you may just continue to ignore them, but either way, I'll link to the committee:

      http://www.aaanet.org/committees/commissions/aec/gad_module_2.pdf

      They also address the alleged "strawman," that races need to be distinct groups.

      At this point, I'm concluding any further "discussion" over this topic, as it has quickly become a mere trading of ad nauseam talking points, and thus does not serve any use.

      Delete
    2. "The clusters you mention are, as I said, arbitrary in determining race."

      No, they are not. You can't just find random correlates and assign them to whatever group you choose, there are undeniable correlates to traditional racial categories, and this can't be argued. It's not arbitrary.

      Also, the gradient does represent Z, which is why we CAN assign racial categories.

      Delete
    3. Okay, before I continue to ignore comments, this really just needs to be replied to.

      That isn't what I meant by it being arbitrary. What I meant is that human variation is very much clinal in nature, thus where you draw the lines (unless according to geography) are going to be subjective. I said earlier that geography is, in fact, useful in studying population genetics and the evolutionary history of human beings that lived separately from each other for the most part.

      In my post, I linked to the Serre and Pääbo study which found that if you take a homogeneous sampling of the human species, you do not see those narrow tubes in between the clusters which is shown by graph Z. The best way to understand this is to understand the difference between constant observation and split observation of human populations.

      Around the time that the traditional racial categories we're aware of now were assigned, Europeans mainly traveled by sea and along the coast, stopping at certain points -- thus they traveled past certain areas. If you were to, however, walk through western Europe and down into the bottom of Africa by foot, and were to stop frequently in countries and communities, you would see a very gradual change in phenotypes. This is the gradient.

      If you take a handful of people from Spain, then a handful from Mongolia, then a handful from Angola, then you are going to see the split. If you take a handful of people from those locations and all people in between, you probably won't.

      Delete
  13. Be the author of this blog.

    Be told exactly why your post is incorrect.

    Ignore all the posts telling you that you're incorrect, claim the debate as "meaningless", and then censor all posts to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Be the author of this blog." -- Hello.

      "Be told exactly why your post is incorrect." -- And respond to the arguments.

      "Ignore all the posts telling you that you're incorrect," -- Yet somehow respond to every single one.

      "claim the debate as 'meaningless'" -- Quote from your local asshole?

      "and then censor all posts to the contrary." -- Yet somehow let more detractors post than supporters? If I censored all posts to the contrary, there wouldn't be a single detractor here, but there are several.

      I'm noticing the trend. The arguments that people put against me, very recently, have all been so easily proven wrong that it's getting boring. You're wasting my time here by asserting things that are just glaringly untrue.

      Delete
  14. **This comment came from someone by the name of "imnotherzog," and it's from May 13th. I noticed it in my email while doing a blog check, but when I went to publish it, it was already removed. I don't know if I unconsciously deleted it thinking it was spam because of all the links, or something happened with Blogger, but my sincerest apologies to the commenter. Their website is (http://imnotherzog.wordpress.com/). I'm recreating it here so that I can respond to it when I get the chance, but until then, thank you to this commenter, and I hope he/she sees that their comment was approved, albeit several months late.**

    I think you'll find these two essays worth your time:

    1) http://www.uni-potsdam.de/philologie+rassismus/download/SesardicRasse.pdf

    2) http://katharsismedicina.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/confusions-about-race-a-new-installment.pdf

    Also, someone over at "The Right Stuff" mentioned Greg Cochran to you. You should pick up The 10,000 Year Explosion by Greg and his anthropologist co-author Henry Harpending.

    Finally, if you aren't engaging these guys, you should:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/why-race-as-a-biological-construct-matters/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29#.UZTZskpXqCU

    AND

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-all-in-clusters.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It feels weird rebutting a comment under my own name, but, here I go.

      I'm familiar with the work of Neven Sesardić, enough to say that I don't exactly take his name seriously, especially when it comes to directly confronting the biological basis (or lackthereof) of race. He's a philosopher, not a biologist or anthropologist. His publications made their way into journals that are open to people of all disciplines, not ones that are relevant to the subject. At any rate, what criticism of biology that philosophy has to offer seems to be, for the most part, irrelevant. This isn't about criticizing the approaches of social scientists, but of learning how to properly analyze the data we already have available to us. Nevertheless, it's fine to look into his arguments, because it makes an example.

      Sesardić talks about a lot of things in his first paper, but a few truly bug me. First, his detailing of Lewontin's Fallacy was very repetitious. He tried to emphasize the argument that A.W.F. Edwards was making by rewording it with a biased coin-flipping analogy. It was unnecessary, and this is where I take my stance that philosophy has its limitations in criticizing biology. It has been fairly well noted, even here, that the argument that using a multi-locus analysis produces more accurate results isn't without its own flaws.

      Another is that he doesn't seem to understand what the biggest reasons are for not approving of the Rosenberg (2002) study for validation of race. For one, Rosenberg et al. explicitly stated that their results don't make any statements about race. I also detailed why their results retain a level of arbitration after phylogeny.

      It gets worse though. He took part in the same misinterpretation of Sauer's research in 1992 that Metapedia did, stating: "Worse still, forensic anthropologists are quite successful in correctly inferring a person’s race from the skeletal characteristics of human remains, which would of course be impossible if the statements in the above quotations were true. This prompted one bewildered and exasperated scientist to write an article with a provocative title: 'If Races Do Not Exist, Why Are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying Them?'" In fact, I'm almost positive Metapedia got their take on forensic anthropology from this paper. I've already explained what Sauer (1992) found on another post: http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/03/forensic-anthropology-and-race.html

      Of course, I have to skim through these papers a lot because of how much content it is, but it gets worse after this still. He then went on to cite the two articles I cited from Race Reconciled, Konigsberg et al. (2009) and Ousley et al. (2009), as evidence SUPPORTING his interpretation of race, when the authors were arguing exactly the opposite. This is cherry picking at its finest, and evinces why I don't take Sesardić seriously.

      Towards the end, he says that psychological differences such as crime and IQ disparities validate a traditional idea of race, but this goes into the same kind of error that I talk about in my post on racialized medicine. Even if there were a genetic explanation for these disparities, what reason is there to believe that the divisions are cut in a way that overlaps the true groupings that contain the disparity? Race is a very poor proxy and representation for what is real biological variation between human beings.

      Delete
    2. Sesardić's second paper is actually a rebuttal to Adam Hochman, so I don't think it's really my obligation to address much of it. However, there are a few mistakes I can note in his paper.

      Sesardić claims that not only do many scientists/philosophers disagree with Lewontin's conclusions, but also his figures. It has already been conceded that Lewontin fallaciously gained his conclusions from his figures, but now Sesardić seems to think his numbers were wrong? Well how does he defend this? He says this:

      "First, the calculation of the low between-group contribution to total variance refers to differences that were averaged over many genetic loci that were taken into account. With respect to some of the examined loci the between-group contribution is actually much larger than 15%. For example, Lewontin’s own values for the between-group contribution for the genes Duffy, Lutheran and Rh are higher than 30%."

      This isn't an argument. Just because some loci show higher variance than others doesn't mean that we can't decide what the overall differences are. Sesardić's argument can easily be reworded as "there is variance within an average; therefore, averages for Wright's FST are flawed." If that's the road he wants to take, that's fine by me, but it shows his failure not as a philosopher, but as a scientist, or even just as a mathematician. If my town has a 2.1% income inequality rate, then saying "Bob makes $200,000 more than Lucy" isn't an argument saying income inequality is higher than that. It's called data.

      He then claims that Sauer's contention with race is ideological, by citing one of his suggestions in the conclusion of his 1992 paper. What he failed to mention is that the paragraph he quoted was preceded by the statement "That forensic anthropologists place our field's stamp of approval on the traditional and unscientific concept of race each time we make such a judgment is a problem for which I see no easy solution." What Sauer was doing was showing that forensic anthropologists do not validate a biological interpretation of race, but that he has no idea how to make sure people don't think that they do. He was making rhetorical suggestions. Way to quote mine and completely ignore everything Sauer said.

      He then tried to argue against the claim that one can function within systems we don't believe in, as an explanation for how a forensic anthropologist can work with the social constructions of race they don't necessarily agree with. His only argument was "you can't have it both ways," but why not? It's fairly easy to understand how one can comprehend that society constructs race along certain lines, but then not agree with its extension into biology. If he actually read the papers by Konigsberg and Ousley in his other paper, he'd understand that completely.

      There's more I could get into, but again, it's a lot. I can't address absolutely everything that was said, but the fact that he cherry picks data and statements should be fairly obvious by now.

      Delete
    3. Lastly, while I don't have the time to thoroughly look at either of the latter two links, it seems that Khan's argument is "mixed-race people do not disprove their general ancestry, therefore race is important," and the last link is just quoting people talking about things that have already been discussed in this post, such as clustering. The post by Khan isn't relevant, and the post by Hsu is redundant.

      That's all I have time for now. Thanks for commenting, and again, sorry for not seeing your comment in the first place. It's unfortunate that the majority of sizable arguments had to be from Neven Sesardić, but now that's out of the water.

      Delete
  15. I don't know how many "anonymous" commenters you have on here, so I'll just explain to you that I'm a new one. My name is Simon, I am 21 years old, I live in the UK and I have Asperger's syndrome. Hope that's proof enough that I am who I say I am, and you don't confuse me with anyone else!

    Doesn't seem to me that anyone has raised the vitally important issue of the startling similarities of sub-saharan africans to apes, particularly gorillas. I'm talking of course about the broad and depressed naval cavity, the prognathism and the bony remnants of a sagittal crest in individuals of west african origin.

    I'm of the certain opinion that the different races are the result of differing stages of evolution, as unpalatable as that may be to those of an egalitarian, relativist, cultural marxist, or politically correct bent. I sense that the blog author may be under the poisonous influence of Franz Boas and all the ensuing intellectuals of the "cultural conditioning" lobby, which has of course been the orthodox position of most scientists since the end of the second world war.

    I seem to remember reading that the AAA suffered a split some years ago, caused by an internal conflict. The faction that split away claimed that, funnily enough, they were leaving the organisation because it had become politicised by egalitarian sympathisers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Simon, thank you for commenting. In the future, when you comment, you can choose your own name under the "Reply as:" bar. It'll be the first option above "Anonymous."

      The fact is that humans as a species share characteristics with our fellow great apes. This is just simply because of the fact that we share a common ancestor and have evolved in similar ways. Some people think whites are comparable to the rhesus monkey, so if you think that blacks look like gorillas, then I'm happy for you, but it's not a "vitally important issue." For it to be relevant to you, or a shock, you would have to take the untenable position that "if we're all the same race, then we should all look equally similar to other great apes."

      "I'm of the certain opinion that the different races are the result of differing stages of evolution, as unpalatable as that may be to those of an egalitarian, relativist, cultural marxist, or politically correct bent."

      This isn't just unpalatable to the philosophical/political schools you mentioned. This is unpalatable to science. Evolution doesn't work in stages. All populations that are distanced from one another will gradually develop different allelic frequencies and the like. That's branching, though. There are no "stages of evolution."

      "I sense that the blog author may be under the poisonous influence of Franz Boas and all the ensuing intellectuals of the "cultural conditioning" lobby, which has of course been the orthodox position of most scientists since the end of the second world war."

      Why exactly is Franz Boas a "poisonous influence?" He's the father of modern anthropology, and his work was revolutionary for the field. Much of what we now know can be attributed to his research and work. I hardly call that a poisonous influence.

      "I seem to remember reading that the AAA suffered a split some years ago, caused by an internal conflict. The faction that split away claimed that, funnily enough, they were leaving the organisation because it had become politicised by egalitarian sympathisers."

      You didn't provide a source, but assuming what you say is true, some people are bound to disagree with the consensus to maintain their outdated views; however, it's not just the American Anthropological Association that has rejected the notion of race, as I explained in my post. "Climate realists" also reject the scientific consensus, claiming that climate change is all a liberal hoax. Just because the dissenting voices say "your position is politically charged, not scientifically sound" does not make it so.

      Delete
    2. I'm not saying all blacks look like gorillas, although the vast majority do seem to be strikingly simian in cranial bone structure and facial features than Europeans or Asians. I know there is the odd white person who looks like a monkey, like the singer Steven Tyler who looks like a baboon, not to mention that gigantic Russian boxer who looks positively prehistoric! I wonder if you did some genetic tests on him, you might find some well preserved Neanderthal DNA in his blood. Certainly wouldn't surprise me if that turned out to be the case. But at the end of the day there will always be flukes, and an exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule.

      Perhaps I should have used a different term than stages, but it's just semantic weaselling again either way. I think that some races have evolved in a direction that makes them more adaptable to creating, and contributing to, modern civilisation. In street terms I might put it as "you can take the African out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the African." As you can probably tell, the cult of non-judgementalism has left me relatively unscathed. Maybe it's because Asperger's people are staunchly loyal to truth, or so I have read.

      Franz Boas is a very strange individual, and I believe that much of his "research" and subsequent findings were politically motivated. It is important to note that he was Jewish and would therefore have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates, when it strikes me that hardly any debate at all was required. I felt uneasy about him because of his snake-like deceitfulness and blatant disregard for self evident realities, qualities that seem to be typical of Jewish pseudo-intellectuals. And yet, a minority of modern day Jews like Steven Pinker have proven invaluable in repealing the Boasian "blank slate" school of thought. I personally cannot think of any other ideology that has done more damage to the pursuit of objective truth than blank slate relativism, aside from religion of course.
      I'm going to presume you are familiar with Kevin MacDonald and his "Culture of Critique" series, but you should definitely check it out if you're not familiar.

      I think I read about the AAA split while I was reading about the incident with James Watson, when he was treated so badly by "peers" when he commented on low intelligence among native Africans and immigrants of African descent (which seems like a no brainer to anyone without an egalitarian agenda... pun intended!)

      Delete
    3. "I'm not saying all blacks look like gorillas, although the vast majority do seem to be strikingly simian in cranial bone structure and facial features than Europeans or Asians."

      Nobody ever accused you of saying so, either.

      "I know there is the odd white person who looks like a monkey, like the singer Steven Tyler who looks like a baboon, not to mention that gigantic Russian boxer who looks positively prehistoric! I wonder if you did some genetic tests on him, you might find some well preserved Neanderthal DNA in his blood."

      Bearing similarity to another animal does not necessitate that you share DNA with that animal. If that were true, we could say Taylor Lautner descended from an alpaca.

      "But at the end of the day there will always be flukes, and an exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule."

      Let me reiterate the arguments. Blacks, to you, share similarity with gorillas. It would be unlikely for all populations of humanity to bear the exact same resemblance to gorillas as each other. Picking what group looks most like a gorilla doesn't do anything to inform the discourse; it obfuscates it. We share a common ancestor with the great apes. We are apes. It is therefore unsurprising that some people look similar to apes: black, white, or purple.

      "Perhaps I should have used a different term than stages, but it's just semantic weaselling again either way."

      Suggesting that there are stages to evolution is a misrepresentation of the knowledge we have, and it's important (not to mention simply responsible) to use the correct terminology so that people don't become confused.

      "I think that some races have evolved in a direction that makes them more adaptable to creating, and contributing to, modern civilisation."

      You're invoking cultural relativism. What's "modern civilization?" From what perspective?

      When you say that Race 1 evolved to be better at (A) than Race 2, then you're suggesting there was an evolutionary pressure for Race 1 to be better at doing so than Race 2. So, what was that pressure? Why was Race 1 forced to build better civilization, while Race 2 was not? That means members of Race 2 can withhold from building better civilizations and stay alive, but Race 1 couldn't. Why is that?

      Also, what evolutionary mechanisms bring one of those groups to evolve in such a way?

      "As you can probably tell, the cult of non-judgementalism has left me relatively unscathed. Maybe it's because Asperger's people are staunchly loyal to truth, or so I have read."

      Then how is that you and I have incompatible views? What you've "read" seems to be remarkably self-serving.

      "Franz Boas is a very strange individual, and I believe that much of his "research" and subsequent findings were politically motivated."

      Reasoning for this?

      "It is important to note that he was Jewish and would therefore have a vested interest in the outcome of these debates, when it strikes me that hardly any debate at all was required."

      This would be affirming the consequent, assuming being Jewish has any bearing on what stance one takes in these debates.

      "I felt uneasy about him because of his snake-like deceitfulness and blatant disregard for self evident realities, qualities that seem to be typical of Jewish pseudo-intellectuals."

      Evidence for this? What self-evident realities? What deceitfulness? You haven't quantified any of the charges you've made against Boas.

      "And yet, a minority of modern day Jews like Steven Pinker have proven invaluable in repealing the Boasian "blank slate" school of thought."

      Boas did not believe in a blank slate.

      "I personally cannot think of any other ideology that has done more damage to the pursuit of objective truth than blank slate relativism, aside from religion of course."

      What is "blank slate relativism?"

      Delete
    4. "I'm going to presume you are familiar with Kevin MacDonald and his "Culture of Critique" series, but you should definitely check it out if you're not familiar."

      I fear that I'm going to find the same unquantified claims that you're posing here. Before I consider looking into something else, you've incurred a lot of questions here. I'll list them:

      1: Why is it of vital importance to understand that some people look like apes? We're humans. We are apes. We share a common ancestor with other apes. Why is this important, or anything new, or surprising, or informative?
      2: How do you define modern civilization, and what is your reasoning for this definition?
      3: What are the evolutionary pressures/mechanisms that would lead some "races" to be better at building your defined "modern civilization" than others?
      4: How was Boas's work politically motivated, or deceitful, or at odds with "self-evident realities?"
      5: What evidence do you have for a split in the AAA, and why is it relevant?

      Overall, you need to actually make an argument. You've stated several of your beliefs, but have provided no rationale for them, or evidence for your claims.

      Delete
  16. I'll submit a more lengthy reply later, as right now I'm pressed for time. What is evident in talking with you, and most other people these days, is an inability to accept anything at face value. Everything, even the most obvious statement, has to be backed up with a "source" or a "source of a source" and so on. This is the kind of denial I'm talking about, a tedious, excruciating, relativist stance that makes the establishment of even the plainest facts an uphill struggle. You ask me to define modern civilisation, but you already know the what that is. It's all around you. It's weasel words and semantic double talk again. Why don't you ask me to define the colour green while I'm at it? It seems an impossibility for anyone these days to accept that some things simply "are" so, and that's as far as it goes.

    That some groups have highly simian features is important because it tells us they are less suited to living in civilised society; they are closer down the pole to our ape ancestors, they have evolved the least away from them. This explains the high testosterone level of blacks, the high levels of aggression, and the difficulty we often have in telling a black male from a black female.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'll submit a more lengthy reply later, as right now I'm pressed for time."

      I'll be the judge of whether or not I even bother with that.

      "What is evident in talking with you, and most other people these days, is an inability to accept anything at face value. Everything, even the most obvious statement, has to be backed up with a "source" or a "source of a source" and so on."

      The questions I asked you, with the exception of #2, were all very much legitimate and necessary. If you're going to accuse someone of deceit and political motivation, you need evidence for it. If you're going to claim that some races are better at "building modern civilization" because of evolution, you need evidence for it. This is a fairly simple requisite for discussion. I can't take anything you say for face value because you have a good track record of saying the most ridiculous of things, and even making up terms that seem relevant to you, like "blank slate relativism."

      "This is the kind of denial I'm talking about, a tedious, excruciating, relativist stance that makes the establishment of even the plainest facts an uphill struggle."

      You call it denial, but you've yet to establish most of your claims as being factually correct. A lot of what you said was glaringly false; therefore, denial would be the appropriate position to take. Denial of falsehood is rationally defensible.

      "You ask me to define modern civilisation, but you already know the what that is. It's all around you. It's weasel words and semantic double talk again."

      Maybe you're starting to get it? Point #2 was actually rhetorical. Yes, modern civilization is all around me. It's also all around you, and it's also all around the child who was just born in Lithuania, or Tibet, or Japan or Chile. "Modern civilization" is something that is defined relative to the society or culture you are born and raised in, not by any empirical standards. Sure, you can argue that because some societies have defeated certain diseases, or decreased unemployment rates, etc. that they're more "modern," but modernity is mostly based on your preferences.

      "Why don't you ask me to define the colour green while I'm at it? It seems an impossibility for anyone these days to accept that some things simply "are" so, and that's as far as it goes."

      Because -- get this, it's going to blow you out of the water -- some people disagree with you! You think that Franz Boas being a deceitful scientist is as true as is the fact that the sky is blue. I, on the other hand, have yet to see that, and require evidence. You, on the other hand, think that what's obvious to you should be obvious to everyone, and they should ultimately accept it as fact, no further questions. Remember earlier when I said that what you seem to read is self-serving? I think I understand why that is now.

      "That some groups have highly simian features is important because it tells us they are less suited to living in civilised society; they are closer down the pole to our ape ancestors, they have evolved the least away from them."

      So Taylor Lautner has also evolved the least away from an alpaca? Again, you've failed to answer the question: why does looking like an animal necessitate that you have DNA from that animal? Again, you're completely mischaracterizing how evolution works by insinuating that because populations in Africa didn't evolve in the same ways as other populations did, and kept traits that benefit them in Africa, that they're less developed or evolved. Let me explain a few things to you.

      Delete
    2. Narrow nostrils are an evolved trait in response to colder climates. When the air is colder, the nostrils need to be narrower to protect the nasal cavity and the lungs from the cold. In warmer climates, they don't need to be this way. Similarly, different climates have different effects on skin color; and while it hasn't been conclusively verified, it's proposed that differences in jaw structure are a result of different diets. This is Anthropology 101, simple climatic adaptation. Here, I found a nice link for you:

      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121630/climatic-adaptation

      At this point, it's doubtful you have much familiarity with the field of anthropology. This is probably almost like a hobby for you, so you don't fully understand evolution and how it applies to modern humans. Regardless, trying to spread misinformation to people on my website isn't forgivable, especially when I've invested a lot of time in researching the things that people like you refuse to look up. Your cursory "blacks look more like apes, therefore they've evolved less" doesn't stand to scrutiny, and this is why I ask you for sources and evidence -- because otherwise, given your track record, nobody has to take you seriously.

      "This explains the high testosterone level of blacks, the high levels of aggression, and the difficulty we often have in telling a black male from a black female."

      1: Telling the difference between a black male and a black female, again, is largely dependent on where you're raised, and is thus subjective. If you are raised in an environment of mostly black people, you will find it much easier to differentiate not only between genders, but from different ethnic groups, and different individuals. The same goes for being white. The culture and environment you're raised in biases your observations; this is something that cannot be avoided. Regardless, supposing that blacks look more like apes has nothing to do with this.

      2: If you're talking about crime disparities, there is simply a huge list of explanations for criminality other than an unsupported position of "blacks are more like apes;" socioeconomic status and education to name two.

      3: Higher testosterone levels in blacks are not unequivocally supported by the data; research in the subject has warranted conflicting results. For example, a 1986 paper by Ross et al. suggested that after controlling for confounding variables, blacks had 15% higher circulating testosterone levels and 13% higher free testosterone levels. However, Lopez et al. in 2013 found that there is not statistically significant difference between testosterone levels in blacks and whites, and that it's in fact Hispanics who tend to have higher testosterone levels, although this higher rate is modest at best:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23354421

      At the same time, the link between testosterone and aggression/criminality has also not be conclusively determined, with the results of several studies being mixed, so bringing up testosterone levels may be a moot point to begin with.

      If you wish to continue spreading the information that you are, I would suggest you find evidence for your claims. You're not doing so well, and I'm growing impatient with you. I'll tell you what, though: of the questions I asked in my last comment, I'll only hold you responsible with one: what evidence do you have that Franz Boas was deceitful?

      Delete
  17. "That some groups have highly simian features is important because it tells us they are less suited to living in civilised society; they are closer down the pole to our ape ancestors, they have evolved the least away from them. This explains ... the difficulty we often have in telling a black male from a black female." Ignoring the fact that when it comes to sexual dimorphism in great apes, it's probably the least prevalent in humans. Man I love pseudo-anthropologists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On lunch break cB? Hahaha thank you for taking the time to contribute. I didn't think of that before.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I had time so I was surfing teh interwebz. I remembered this post and the page on John/Sam, so I checked up to see how everything was going. Little did I know you're still dealing with flaming morons.

      Delete
  18. You read the "Culture of Critique" series by Kevin MacDonald, because it will answer all your questions about the corrupt Boaz and his blank slate relativism, which you pretend not to recognise but in fact, every single thing you have said in your replies REEKS of it. Everything's always subjective with you people; there can never be an objectively true fact. Everything is environmental with you, it's textbook Boas.

    Everyone accepts that men are more violent than women; higher testosterone. In the highly feminised western world it is uncontroversial to state the objective truth about the genders (as long as men come off worse); but we better not dare put race and genetics under the microscope! The result is always an egalitarian shitstorm of biblical proportions.

    You suffer from the same malady as the creationists, the "teach the controversy" fallacy. This is why I loathe democracy; it functions on the principle of equality of opinion, and that any view is only ever a subjective opinion. It's unthinkable that one side can be simply right and the other side simply wrong. Every view has to have an element of truth to it, doesn't it? Talk about intellectual bankruptcy.

    I'm predicting you'll dig your heels in and refuse to read his books. Oh, what I've read is self serving? I'll have you know that I used to espouse fairly liberal views as well. As I got older and matured, began to think for myself and take into context what I was seeing all around me, the mold was broken. I haven't looked back since.

    Oh my, the evil racist west has biased my opinions of the noble savage! If I had a cookie for every time I've heard this, well I'd have busted the friggin' scales. Oh and of course affirmative action and dumbing down the curriculum and pumping billions into the African continent still hasn't closed the black-white IQ gap has it? And how about them East Asians outperforming whites on those evil biased western intelligence tests? Oh, I can hear your toes curling from here.

    These pages cover just about every leftist cliché you've chucked my way:

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Races

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_realist

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_denialism

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Racism_(Marxism)

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct_euphemisms_for_race

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Black_privilege

    http://en.metapedia.org/m/images/f/f1/Equality_facts.jpg

    and watch ALL six of these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kHTekD3ycg

    Although something tells me you'll find some excuse not to look at any of these links, being evil and racist and reprehensible as they are, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear, let's see what you've done now.

      "You read the "Culture of Critique" series by Kevin MacDonald, because it will answer all your questions about the corrupt Boaz and his blank slate relativism, which you pretend not to recognise but in fact, every single thing you have said in your replies REEKS of it."

      I'm going to have a hard time listening to Kevin MacDonald if that's where you get your information from. Yes, everything I've said and the work of Boas just "REEKS" of blank slate relativism, that thing that you... never... defined.

      The reason being because you've mixed two different approaches and claimed them as one. Since you like him so much, to quote Steven Pinker, "for all his emphasis on culture, Boas was not a relativist who believed that all cultures are equivalent, nor was he an empiricist who believed in the Blank Slate. He considered European civilization superior to tribal cultures, insisting only that all peoples were capable of achieving it. He did not deny that there might be a universal human nature, or that there might be differences among people within an ethnic group. What mattered to him was the idea that all ethnic groups are endowed with the same basic mental abilities. Boas was right about this, and today it is accepted by virtually all scholars and scientists."

      "Everything's always subjective with you people; there can never be an objectively true fact. Everything is environmental with you, it's textbook Boas."

      No, but many people attribute things to objectivity when they are in fact subjective, and many people do not admit to the biases their culture imposes upon them. I can see you're getting upset now, so I'll just stop hammering that in and keep going.

      "Everyone accepts that men are more violent than women; higher testosterone. In the highly feminised western world it is uncontroversial to state the objective truth about the genders (as long as men come off worse); but we better not dare put race and genetics under the microscope! The result is always an egalitarian shitstorm of biblical proportions."

      Now you're just spewing political propaganda. Of course one has to be egalitarian to critically examine population genetics; and of course that critical examination extends to complete denial of genetics altogether. Sorry Simon, this page is for scientific discussions, not propagandized sociopolitical tirades. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

      "You suffer from the same malady as the creationists, the "teach the controversy" fallacy."

      Yet you didn't identify where I committed this fallacy.

      "This is why I loathe democracy; it functions on the principle of equality of opinion, and that any view is only ever a subjective opinion."

      Democracy is identified by the operations, structure and limitations of a political system (a functioning state, accountable government, and rule of law), not the philosophies that come with it It has nothing to do with equality of opinion. Even when you invoke politics, you fail completely.

      "It's unthinkable that one side can be simply right and the other side simply wrong. Every view has to have an element of truth to it, doesn't it? Talk about intellectual bankruptcy."

      Not true at all. I've said on numerous occasions that you're blatantly wrong. I did so just above. I guess you missed that?

      "I'm predicting you'll dig your heels in and refuse to read his books."

      Not much of a prediction, since I already said I wouldn't do so until I felt like there was something worthwhile to read. How about this: you read all of the articles in Race Reconciled, and I'll read one or two of Kevin MacDonald's books, okay?

      Delete
    2. "Oh, what I've read is self serving? I'll have you know that I used to espouse fairly liberal views as well. As I got older and matured, began to think for myself and take into context what I was seeing all around me, the mold was broken. I haven't looked back since."

      Why does it seem that every "racial realist" I speak to always claims they used to be a "liberal?" I'm starting to get the feeling that someone isn't telling the whole story!

      I loved the "I'll have you know" part too. The petulance is unprecedented. Sorry, just because you reformed your own views doesn't mean you're not self-serving. Having had a different attitude before does not somehow disprove that you have that attitude now. That's why you changed. Get over it.

      "Oh my, the evil racist west has biased my opinions of the noble savage!"

      Ah yes, now you're upset because I said you're biased by your culture, so you have to take it to an extremity. This kind of childish fist smashing doesn't work around here. Sorry, you're not getting another cookie.

      "Oh and of course affirmative action and dumbing down the curriculum and pumping billions into the African continent still hasn't closed the black-white IQ gap has it? And how about them East Asians outperforming whites on those evil biased western intelligence tests? Oh, I can hear your toes curling from here."

      The black-white wealth gap has tripled over the past 25 years, while socioeconomic status maintains a moderate correlation with IQ:

      http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf

      Most of the things you said here were red herrings or strawmen. The 5 points East Asians have on whites can be explained almost entirely by their higher emphasis on education, specifically mathematics. Sorry, but IQ tests do have some biases, although this isn't a sufficient explanation for the black-white IQ gap; however, a genetic explanation has not held up either, as stated by the APA in their conclusions:

      http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf

      Plus I've already been involved with the IQ debate before:

      http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/p/laughingman-vs-sam-owl-the.html

      The majority of arguments you can offer me have been settled. Genetic explanations for the IQ gap do not stand to scrutiny, and many environmental influences can be used to explain the gap. These arguments are just old.

      As for the slew of links, you might as well be an expert in biases. Don't worry, though. I've been slowly working on a full rebuttal to the page on "racial realism." Until then, consult the above post, my post on forensic anthropology and race, my page on the IQ debate, and my post on racialized medicine.

      Sorry, I honestly don't expect you to look into these links, because I'm not looking into yours. As I've said, your arguments have been pretty pathetic, and so I don't think I'm obligated to look further into your "sources" (which aren't scholarly or peer-reviewed, but instead are political online encyclopedias and... YouTube. How thrilling), because I don't think I'll find anything new or challenging. When you find a scholarly paper that contradicts my position, however, just let me know and I'll take a look at it. Until then, thanks for playing, and keep a sharp eye out for that rebuttal page I mentioned.

      ;)

      Delete
  19. Every race has the same mental faculties... are you kidding me? I guess every individual has the same propensity for violent behaviour too! Seriously, how do we explain european high culture compared to mud huts and body mutilation? Let's have a look at a quote from one of my links, which is course beneath you because it's so biased and evil:

    "Throughout 6000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing. He has never invented the wheel, never smelted metals, never built a road, a bridge, a railway, or a vessel. He has never developed a written language or a system of measurement, and could not count beyond his fingers. He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use, although many powerful and docile beasts surround him. His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable."

    You do realise that it's East Asians who were born in western countries and educated to the standards of those countries that are still out-performing both blacks and whites? Five IQ points isn't exactly a trivial amount, you know. Several years ago, when I had my intelligence test done, I was disappointed with the result of IQ 111 since it's only eleven points higher than average. They told me that 11 points was not as insignificant as it sounded, and could possibly be higher, but the diagnosis for aspergers apparently complicates the matter. They were, however, surprised that my speech and language skills were high above average, but my mathematical skills were below average, not just for an autistic but for a neurotypical as well.

    There's an African American scientist named Richard Goldsby who is also an advocate for the biological basis for race and racial differences. I think you should look into him.

    I'm sure you've been working very hard, consulting all those politically correct organisations, the AAA, the AAPA, which was the faction that split away, but has since been retaken by the equalitarians, making the split all but pointless. If you don't read those books, well, I can only say you're leaving out a mass of crucial information. It is your loss if you choose to ignore it.

    You're still pretending you don't know what blank slate theory is? Even when Pinker has talked about it at length? I'm sorry, that would be like a physicist having no idea what the periodic table is. I'm not buying your professed ignorance to blank slate ideology.

    Don't you back down when it's convenient, you read those books. The degree of Jewish involvement in anthropology, biology, social science and genetics, and how they've twisted it to their agenda, is extremely disturbing to anyone who's committed to intellectual honesty, not to mention the survival of his own people. But something tells me you couldn't give a damn about the impending dysgenic disaster that will, in all likelihood, be the death of european civilisation. I don't give people within my own racial group a free pass either, you know. In fact most of the people I detest the most are of white european descent, but my dislike of them is mostly for genetic reasons as opposed to petty disagreements.

    What's wrong with YouTube? I don't see how the website itself has any bearing on the content of the videos, which could have been uploaded to any video hosting site. It's Kevin MacDonald holding a conference in Denmark, with some important excerpts from his books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These will be your last comments on my blog. I'll also not address them with nearly as much detail as I have been, because they've gotten to the point of pure ridiculousness.

      The idea of race is flawed. It serves as a poor representation of real biological variation. My position is based on the evidence, not on my political convictions; thus, when the evidence does not suggest a genetic explanation for the black-white IQ gap, that's the stance I take.

      Africans never invented written language? I guess Nsibidi never existed.
      Never smelted metals? Sorry Benin Empire, you're just fiction.
      And goodbye Egyptian units of measurement.
      Arrivederci domesticated goats and geese.
      For large animals, I guess Africans were expected to best natural selection and catch those wild zebras, huh? Forget apex predators, zebras and buffalo should be just so easy and worthwhile to domesticate.
      Oh, and the Nok culture just disappeared because racists don't like it when Africans were actually capable of building large cities and civilizations. Also, see Benin again.

      I could go on forever with how much bullshit was in that paragraph, but we'll stop here.

      If you've ever known someone with a traditional family from China, Japan, etc., you'll know what happens when they get a "B" or lower. This is one of those self-evident realities we were talking about before, and I'm not too fond of repeating things I've already said a dozen times. Also, I love the humble brag about your IQ.

      Oh, right, I see. The APA, the AAA, the AAPA, and the HGP are all at odds with you, so you have to write them off as politically correct organizations. Whenever something conflicts with your views, you write it off as politically correct and unscientific. I thought you were dedicated to truth, though, and weren't biased? Tsk tsk tsk.

      You didn't say "blank slate theory." You said "blank slate relativism." I quoted from Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" to disprove what you said about Boas believing in a blank slate. That's right, your own source proved you wrong. Congratulations.

      "... is extremely disturbing to anyone who's committed to intellectual honesty..." Poisoning the well.

      "omg europe is gonna die cuz genetics" Because we all know how familiar you are with genetics, evolution, etc., Simon Stages.

      "What's wrong with YouTube?" It's not peer-reviewed, or scholarly. Anyone can upload anything to there, because it doesn't undergo any scientific scrutiny.

      Delete
    2. For languages, there's also Lybico-Berber, Thinite, Medu Neter, Proto-Saharan, Ge'ez, etc. I don't know where racists get the idea that Africans never developed systems of writing. They had strong oral tradition, yes, but they wrote nonetheless. Their advances in metallurgy were around 1500 years ahead of Europe too, so there goes never having smelted any metals. They totally obliterated the Greeks in reaching the Iron Age too by about 400 years. They skipped the Bronze Age, too, which is remarkable.

      Alexis already mentioned the Egyptian systems of measurement, but there was also the Yoruba system and the system in present-day Zaire. Ancient African achievements in math, science and astronomy have been praised by historians and scholars for how many abstract thought was required to conceptualize them. Alexis also mentioned the Noks of Nigeria and the Benin Empire, but don't forget the Kingdom of Kush too! Although the Benin Empire was really impressive, since it was about as big as Haarlem. The walls surrounding Benin City were the biggest man made structure on earth until the Great Wall of China came along.

      And what's this about not cultivating a single crop? Agriculture in Africa began circa 5000 BCE. Again, I don't know where racists come up with this shit. The few things they do get right it's like, so what? Like the wheel. They didn't have horses or anything to pull wagons or caravans, because the creatures were so tough and used up so many resources that it just wasn't worth it. So what if they never invented a wheel? How does that somehow make them inferior? I could go on forever too, but I think it's pretty obvious what's wrong with Simon. He hasn't accomplished anything so he wants to live vicariously through his white ancestors, and then he relies on made up bullshit that racists come up with to make it seem like whites are the greatest. It's so pathetic. It takes 10 minutes on Google to debunk all of this nonsense and they still talk about it like it's fact. Get real, real racists.

      Delete
  20. I never said I used to be a liberal, far from it. There were certain liberal views that I would have agreed with by default once upon a time and thought nothing of it, but that was before I developed fully. My mother used to warn me often that there were certain things I must not say or draw attention to, not because they were wrong but because it would get me in trouble. It has become apparent that even a neurological condition is no defence for overstepping the PC line.

    The peer review process is notorious for it's ties to politically correct ideologies, egalitarianism, relativism and so forth. Here's a news article that discusses peer review, the multiregional hypothesis, and how relativism has become the definition of a secular religion:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2014/08/out-of-africa-political-correctness-and-science-2481316.html

    The Jews are wise to the follies of democracy, and that is why they only promote it's inherent relativism in gentile countries, as this article from a Jewish website demonstrates beautifully:

    http://www.shamar.org/articles/truth-versus-democracy.php#.U_TzrZUg_IU

    Egalitarianism is not the same as impartialism, I do hope you realise that. Egalitarianism is the belief in equality, no matter what. That's a self evidently erroneous belief, and an ideologically predetermined one at that.

    You're so wrapped up in subjectivity I'll bet you're one of those philistines that deny that objective beauty even exists. You probably wouldn't even differentiate between the quality of a tropical oasis and a garbage island. I weep to think I shall live to see relativism be the ruin of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm so sorry that the big bad political correction police are out to get you for being a warrior of truth and justice, but the thing is that's not happening. You're just an idiot.

      You linked to a biased news article that complained about peer review, but they didn't cite any sources for why it's so bad and prone to "politically correct ideologies" or whatever. Sorry, peer review is how the scientific community operates to ensure that falsehoods aren't readily produced as scholarly works. By the way, if "egalitarianism" prevents politically incorrect works from being published, then please explain how this was published in a peer reviewed journal:

      http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

      The fact is you complain about peer review because it obstructs your worldview. Now that you've rejected peer review, you have justified using absolutely anything and everything to legitimize your claims. No sources, evidence, proof or scrutiny is required -- as long as somebody is saying something, and you agree with it, you can cite it as a reference. No wonder you feel so persecuted: you're completely hopeless.

      Egalitarianism has a very broad range of definitions, but "equality no matter what" isn't one of them. Lockean egalitarianism just says that every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. Egalitarianism, however, isn't relevant here, because neither you nor I are egalitarian.

      "You're so wrapped up in subjectivity I'll bet you're one of those philistines that deny that objective beauty even exists."

      Beauty is a response to aesthetic appeals. Aesthetics are how our body reacts to interacting with certain things; therefore, beauty is contingent on our personal reaction to something. That means it's subjective. Get a fucking library card.

      "You probably wouldn't even differentiate between the quality of a tropical oasis and a garbage island."

      Just because beauty is subjective doesn't mean I don't have my personal standards for beauty. By the way, all this talk about beauty was a non sequitur. We weren't talking about beauty, or Jews, or egalitarianism. We were talking about the biological basis for race, which you failed to support.

      Delete
    2. And so, let's summarize your views here:

      1: You think that people can be "less evolved" than others.
      2: You think that if someone bears resemblance to an animal, they have to have DNA shared with that animal.
      3: You think that peer-review is politically motivated (thus allowing you to cite anything and everything that agrees with you).
      4: You've dismissed every single organization and source that disagrees with you (thus allowing you to project your worldview without feeling guilty for being wrong).

      Sorry, but it's absolutely impossible to have a discussion with someone who immediately rejects all scientific authorities on a topic just so they can persist in their biases. Thanks for coming around and showing the audience how stupid you are -- you did me a solid.

      P.S. I don't believe in Out of Africa. ;)

      Delete
    3. "The peer review process is notorious for it's ties to politically correct ideologies, egalitarianism, relativism and so forth." Oh, right, it's notorious for that...

      Kid, you're 21, and you've never dealt with peer review. Just shut up.

      Delete
    4. The two main differences here are that you've actually dealt with peer review before, and unlike Simon, you're right, and not an idiot.

      Delete
  21. As co-author on this blog, I feel like I'm obligated to address certain things when they come to my attention. Basically what that means is when my email is getting spamfucked by somebody who desperately has something to prove, I feel like it's my duty to set him straight and shut him up. I've only got two things to say really, and I hope (Lex) you don't mind me using your rebuttal format.

    "He doesn't believe in out of Africa but yet he somehow believes we have equal intellectual faculties. And what's with this little winking emoticon at the end of each post? 'Ah the jokes on you, I turned turtle and came up with something out of the blue that you didn't expect! Three steps ahead of you, mwahahahaaha!'"

    Yeah, because the multi-regional model is like a trellis of intermixing. Anatomically modern humans bred with archaic humans who bred with their respective archaic humans and so on. There was gene flow between populations, migrations, back migrations, etc. etc. It's actually a lot easier to come up with racist bullshit based on OOA than it is for the multi-regional hypothesis, assuming you actually understand it. I think her winking was because you put a link there that was trying to debunk OOA but she didn't give a shit because she doesn't believe it.

    Oh, yeah, by the way, she's a she.

    "Well, whether you choose to or not, I've got some massive posts coming up, excerpts from MacDonald's book, so get rid of that annoying-as-fuck word count if you can, please."

    "I've got some massive posts coming up"

    Hahahahaha no you don't.

    He's not a word count, but I'd gladly get rid of the jackass named "Simon" who keeps coming back to our blog, screaming about how set in truth he is and how he's unwavering to political correctness. Bravo, man! You're a wingnut who has fallen into lunacy because of how desperately you want "muh dik" to be an anthropological term in next year's science textbooks. Get off my blog and please, please, pinch your ass in the door on the way out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I could be as resolute as this. Sometimes I just feel bad if I don't reply, though. Then again, if I keep replying, the debates never end...

      Delete
    2. Oh no, it's fine. I love reading these exchanges. They're hilariously stupid.

      Delete
  22. [Thanks to Ms. Delanoir for the tip on using names instead of "Anonymous."]

    I see catnipBiologist on a few of your posts and pages, and I think they all have to do with race. I see on her profile that she's a veterinary physician, so she's probably well informed, but I do have two questions, if nobody minds.

    1. Does catnipBiologist think she may make her own blog in the future? I think it'd be interesting, not to mention helpful for those of us who can only access laymen who have a healthy interest in science.
    2. What is catnipBiologist's position, exactly, on race as a human classification system? I don't think she's openly expressed her views before.

    You don't need to approve this, but if you do, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like you were approved. Congrats. I'll answer your questions, but before I do I want to make it abundantly clear where the basis is for any position I take: evidence. If I feel the evidence most strongly points towards one position, I take it. If I feel there hasn't been enough research conducted on the topic, I take no position, or whatever default position just makes sense; null vs alternative. Also, when I take a position on whether or not something like this is true, I make no normative propositions. I leave that to the dumbass politicians because that's what's going to happen anyway.

      1. I was considering making a blog, but I've since mostly dropped the idea. There's still a chance I'll do it, but I'll say for now that the probability is unlikely.

      2. That's a tough question. We can't take the same taxonomic approach to humans as we do with all other living things on the planet because of how complex we are. Generally, I'd say it depends on who you ask. Clearly social-morphological race, though plastic, is important to forensic anthropologists. Clearly race means nothing to the cultural anthropologist, and most physical anthropologists. Race may have some significance to a geneticist, but it depends on what they're looking for. Race needs to have context, and it needs to be clearly defined for it to have any meaning.

      I have personal difficulty in deciding whether or not race means anything, specifically to me, for a few conflicting reasons. I see differences between people every day, but I know that my perspective is biased and that the groupings I might assign to people are based on the things I've grown up with and what group I put myself in particularly. At the same time, when I don't have enough unbiased insight on my own to take a position, I defer to the consensus of scientific authorities who are more familiar with the subject. So on that note, Lex gave me a very good reason to take the position that races don't exist: the AAA, AAPA, HGP, and multiple surveys of scientists have all suggested that the vast majority of scientific authorities do not consider race to be a valid taxonomy for humans. Thus it should be safe for me to take the same position, just like I do with everything else. But there's such a stigma around the word "race" that I fear that people can be easily biased to take one position over another based entirely on political reasons alone.

      TL;DR What's my position on race? Hell if I know. I'll give it a few more years and see what comes up. We're learning new things every day, so it'd be ridiculous for me to take a position that I don't see as being solidly true one way or another.

      Delete
    2. [Belated response]

      I can appreciate everything you said in your post. I can understand hesitance to take a stance in such a hotly contested issue; however, I just wanted to comment on one particular thing you said:

      "Race may have some significance to a geneticist, but it depends on what they're looking for."

      I'm assuming you're referring to population geneticists. While some population geneticists do agree that race exists, they agree that it's also subjective, and that it's pretty much impossible to determine how many races there actually are. They also reject the idea that racial differences resulted in IQ differences:

      http://cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists/

      Seems Nicholas Wade has actually helped a little bit with his psycho babble about ping pong genes in the Chinese. Two of the signatories there are Rosenberg, Templeton and Coyne. There's also a signature from Mountain at 23andme Inc. Isn't that funny?

      Delete
  23. "Typological racial classifications do not capture the complex pattern of diversity found in human populations."

    Of course not, but how could they? A classification system built on a few categories and sub-categories would always serve to act as a flawed approximation to a complex reality, and nothing more.

    If people choose to interpret "race" as a definitive, discrete taxological system, then it's simply their own misunderstanding.

    However, does this necessarily mean that such heuristics are entirely useless as subjective, maybe localised, observations?

    Even if a given categorisation itself is a social construct, does that entirely invalidate it's practical usage, if it provides a level of distinction in local contexts?

    I suggest that it doesn't.

    I may not be objectively "tall" or "short" across all different geographies, but when I consider height in the context of any specific geography, it has a definite real-world relevance, even though it's an imperfect description in a broader global sense.

    Similarly, a loosely defined concept of race as a measure of "otherness" among localised populations seems reasonable, even if the criteria used are to an extent arbitrary and only very loosely capture underlying biological references.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Of course not, but how could they? A classification system built on a few categories and sub-categories would always serve to act as a flawed approximation to a complex reality, and nothing more."

      You're ignoring the context here. My point was that compared to other approaches in population genetics, typological racial classifications are not very informative. I didn't merely say that racial classifications don't capture the complexity of human diversity. I gave evidence as to why it's not a useful system.

      "If people choose to interpret 'race' as a definitive, discrete taxological system, then it's simply their own misunderstanding."

      Sure, but if the more fuzzy classification system isn't robust enough to be informative or practical in a biological sense, then the same principles apply.

      "However, does this necessarily mean that such heuristics are entirely useless as subjective, maybe localised, observations?"

      Useless? No, nobody ever said that. In my post, recall that I said "Here, we will try to observe it strictly by its biological validity." I'm not speaking of its usefulness in an individual or social context.

      "Even if a given categorisation itself is a social construct, does that entirely invalidate it's practical usage, if it provides a level of distinction in local contexts? I suggest that it doesn't."

      So do I. Social constructs can have very real, even biological effects on the groups at hand. I've never suggested that race is completely meaningless. I've merely argued that, as a biological classification system, it's obsolete.

      "I may not be objectively 'tall' or 'short' across all different geographies, but when I consider height in the context of any specific geography, it has a definite real-world relevance, even though it's an imperfect description in a broader global sense."

      Yes, it requires context. Again, nobody ever argued against this. I'm speaking strictly in biological terms in this post.

      "Similarly, a loosely defined concept of race as a measure of 'otherness' among localised populations seems reasonable, even if the criteria used are to an extent arbitrary and only very loosely capture underlying biological references."

      Depends on how you define "reasonable," but since commenters who come to my blog tend to not enjoy semantics, I'll just leave that aside. Yes, racial classifications can (emphasis on can) be reasonable or useful in specific contexts. As a broad approach in relevant scientific disciplines, however, it falls short. I'll leave us off with a quote from Relethford (2009):

      "[Race is] a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation."

      And Relethford (2002), which I cited in the post:

      "Biological variation is real; the order we impose on this variation by using the concept of race is not."

      Delete
  24. I wanted to take a crack at Simon's comment about African achievements now that I'm a bit more informed.

    I wanted to take a crack at this comment too, now knowing a bit more about the topic.

    "Throughout 6000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing."

    Blatantly untrue, but this subscribes to the outdated posits of unilineal evolution. The techno-economic features of a culture are not indicative of what "stage" of evolution they're at, but instead reflect the adaptations necessary to their local environment.

    "He has never invented the wheel, never smelted metals, never built a road, a bridge, a railway, or a vessel."

    The nuances of this have already been debunked, but see the above response.

    "He has never developed a written language or a system of measurement, and could not count beyond his fingers."

    Also untrue, as shown by other comments, but the first part perplexes me. Why are people so stuck on displaying written languages? Language is a method of communication, and is only "good" when it has shown to be effective within a given culture or society. If Africans could communicate with each other with practicality and ease, yet didn't have a written language, then bringing up that fact is pointless in terms of somehow proving their "inferiority."

    "He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use, although many powerful and docile beasts surround him."

    See comments above. Again, if all of these were objectively bad things, then I don't see how they've survived for thousands of years.

    "His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head."

    Lex knows particularly why this is funny, but again, see my other responses. If manual transportation was effective for them and kept them functional, then this is a moot point.

    "For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable."

    Untrue again, but again... you know what I'm about to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was probably the best scholarly approach to Simon's "argument." We're now in full understanding that what we consider to be the greatest tenets of "modern" society are subjective to our local environments. Someone who had no need for such techno-economic features, as you put it, certainly wouldn't develop them.

      But these folks don't like relativism, or even particularism, even though it's completely at odds with Marxism (which they're at odds with). It's hard to make this argument and be heard, so sometimes it's nice to go myth busting.

      Delete
  25. "By observing genetic clusters, you can find that there are correlations between racial categories and common geographic regions in some cases. Most people cite Rosenberg et al. (2002) or similar studies to substantiate this claim, but this is a gross misrepresentation of the data. Rosenberg et al. tested 1,052 people from 52 populations and used the data in a computer program called Structure. The program asks for a specified cutoff -- how many groups do the researchers want? The researchers actually, with the data they had available, could assign anywhere between 2 and 20 groups. Now, in one discussion I had over this topic, someone pointed out that this is actually a common problem in machine learning -- determining how many clusters are in a data set. This, however, only concedes to the point that genetic cluster analysis does not validate an objective definition of race, because you have to arbitrarily determine what the cutoff is, and what overlaps you're going to ignore in order to determine a degree of dissimilarity."

    Sure the number of clusters, k, needs to be specified, but if this can be done consistently then the clusters are unequivocally useful. You could say that we can't objectively determine whether there should be 2 or 20 races (I'd disagree, but you could), but the point is that there is somewhere between 2 and 20 races, or populations, or whatever you want to call them. That's all there is to it.

    Later, we can decide the specific number based on other studies, but even with what we have, all of this arguing over subjectivity is pointless, because the data is clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Sure the number of clusters, k, needs to be specified, but if this can be done consistently then the clusters are unequivocally useful."

      Clustering is certainly possible, but it's not consistent. Rosenberg et al. found that when k=6, 5 of the clusters corresponded to continents/subcontinents, the 6th to a genetic isolate, the Kalash people of Pakistan. However, in 2005 (Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure), Rosenberg et al. couldn't reconfirm the Kalash as a separate unit using a larger sample of microsatellites (from 377 to 993 markers) in several of their runs; and in several others, they yielded different results for other groups. The Native Americans, in most of the runs, were clustered into two groups.

      Several other studies have shown that clustering is inconsistent depending on the approach, on what is being observed (CNVs, SNPs, Alu insertions, etc.), and on whether or not it's in an individual or grouped analysis. So yes, if they yielded consistent results all the time, they may be informative; however, this isn't the case.

      "You could say that we can't objectively determine whether there should be 2 or 20 races (I'd disagree, but you could), but the point is that there is somewhere between 2 and 20 races, or populations, or whatever you want to call them."

      No, the conclusion to be found here is that while certain clusters of polymorphisms will yield some groupings, different clusters of different polymorphisms in the same individuals will yield other groupings; and when you want to take one specific approach, the groupings and degrees of clusteredness will vary with changes in sample size and cutoffs. That's all there is to it.

      "Later, we can decide the specific number based on other studies, but even with what we have, all of this arguing over subjectivity is pointless, because the data is clear."

      You could say it's pointless because some people won't ever concede to the point, but yes the data is very clear. You and I can both agree on that, but what the clarity reflects is a different discussion altogether.

      I'd recommend the following link for further reading:

      http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1400-file_it-Barbujani-Colonna.pdf

      And I'd also recommend further analyzing the arguments being made, because my conclusions were actually beyond you. Whether or not clustering is arbitrary and groupings subjective can be debated (although not well), however, the problem is that nobody is denying biological differences between different groups. These differences, however, can be due largely to very recent adaptation, or due to ontogenetic development, as opposed to evolutionary differences. This is where the race argument falls apart.

      Delete
  26. Most of this article is straightforward enough, but I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. How exactly do you define "social construct" and what exactly do you mean by a "objective definition". Of course, I have read various tests which talk about social constructionism. But there is variance in how exactly different authors define it. And how you define it will greatly effect the extent to which I agree with your conclusion. ( I'm interested in understanding exactly what you mean because some people recently asked me to write a response to this article and I, therefore, need to gauge how much I disagree with it.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Spawk, sorry I'm getting back to you kind of late -- I've been busy for the past few hours. I appreciate your questions, because looking back on it, I see that my definition of "social construction" (actually, more so its connotations) change depending on context. I can define it, but first I have a few requests/suggestions.

      I'm going to request that you not make a response just yet, if at all. If you respond to the content in my post, I'll feel personally obligated to respond as well; and in such, I don't really like that kind of discussion format. Likewise, I've recently been informed that some of my content is being used as assigned reading in a formal educational setting, so I've been doing reviews of all of my content to be sure that it's accurate. That being said, I would still love to have a discussion with you about this, because it would offer another perspective and would help me correct the content of my blog. If you're interested, I'd like you to email me and have our discussion in private; afterwards, if you still want to make your response, I think it would be informative if we both wrote reflections on the discussion we had -- our contentions, concessions, or overall comments/concerns.

      All of this is really just for my comfort and convenience. If you just want to write a response, then let me know and I'll define what "social construction" means to me in my next comment. If you're interested in the email exchange instead, just send me one and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you have an alternative suggestion, please share it. As said, I'm looking to correct and improve on the information on my blog, and your input would be much appreciated. I'm just not all that interested in the traditional article-to-article reply format.

      Let me know whenever you can!

      Delete
  27. Race schemas still pervade popular culture: It is politically and economically favorable to those who make a living by making political or other appeals to ethnocentrism.

    • http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration

    Typical race schemas are based on arbitrary points of similarity and dissimilarity in visible phenotype. There are also race schemas based on culturally acquired ethnicity, e.g., native language or religious affiliation. Some race schemas are a combination of both. In any case, they are all ultimately ill-conceived and of no biological significance.
    ________________________________________
    As for Richard C. Lewontin circa 1972, much more has been learned of human variation since that time. Human beings are not a mixture of pure races. Since the discovery of the molecular basis of inheritance and the completion of the Human Genome Project it has been shown that human beings are all the same species.

    The Concept of Race with Richard Lewontin • http://www.uctv.tv/shows/The-Concept-of-Race-The-Confusion-of-Social-and-Biological-Reality-with-Richard-Lewontin-8456
    ________________________________________
    People with race schemas typically assign behaviors and traits to categories of race. Not surprisingly, the extended schemas are typically ethnocentric. That is what is meant by racism, common worldwide throughout history.

    I happen to be a white male. For most of my life I have encountered antisocial bias from selected sociopaths with a race schema. My wife is black. What do people with race schemas think our offspring would be? Mixed race? That is not how it works.

    As recently as 2013 I was forced out as a student from a California State University for failing to adopt and parrot a race schema of an ethnocentric instructor, and this at taxpayer expense. So the issue is of particular concern to me. A review of the assigned text of which students were pressed to adopt as their race schema can be found at this site:

    Institutionalized Racism • http://www.amazon.com/review/R89JX4C9B9JKU
    ________________________________________
    The International Hap Map Project does not support a race schema. Anyone by the method if cherry-picking data and ignoring blatant contradictions can come to the opposite conclusion.

    • http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

    Please consider the following:

    "In human beings, it is simply not possible to delimit clearly defined races that reflect biologically differentiated and well-defined groupings. The reason is simple: different groups of people have constantly intermingled and interbred with one another during the entire course of history. This constant gene flow has prevented the human species from fragmenting in highly differentiated subspecies. Those characteristics that are differentiated among populations, such as skin color, represent classic examples of the antagonism between gene flow and natural selection.” -- Biology 8th Edition, by Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, Singer [McGraw-Hill: 2008] page 714.

    (There is a similar edition posted online, probably without permission:
    • http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/raven6b/graphics/raven06b/other/raven06b_23.pdf
    I am quoting from the copy sitting in my lap. A text this size is better read from hard copy, at least in my experience.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Edwards' fallacy is to try to redefine a problem with a long and problematic usage word to fit his universe. In his terminology any genetically discernible population unit no-matter how small can be "a race". My own "interracial" household for example, would qualify as a race in his terminology, since on average we are all genetically related (except me and my wife).

    Thanks for this post. I've tackled the same subject on my own blog, but yours has a lot nicer graphics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a lot of problems that come from how some people define race. Using the example of genetic structure (using data from the Rosenberg studies), people take it as evidence that traditional racial categories are valid. Well, no, because every population has some structure to it, and just because that exists doesn't mean we can just divide them into neat groups. It also depends on what we're looking at. When Y-chromosome markers or Alu insertions are examined, different clustering arises than what was found in the popular Rosenberg et al. study, such as in Romualdi et al. (2002). Jakobsson et al. (2008) revealed that clustering differs depending on whether or not you examine SNPs differently or if they're examined together to form haplotypes, and that both of these clusters are different from those that arise from examining CNVs.

      Isn't it funny how this all works? Some people still argue that this doesn't mean race isn't valid, just that it's one way of looking at things. In my opinion, this is a weak point, because it basically takes away any value from using traditional racial categories anyway, since it could just as easily be any other cluster we identify.

      Thank you for your input, Magnus!

      Delete
  29. Anyone interested in this subject should take a look at the 2008 Nature paper European Journal of Human Genetics

    Stephen Hsu: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-genetic-variation-fst-and.html
    Razib Khan: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/11/21/more-genetic-maps-of-europe/

    Not only can we genetically identify the main racial groups with practically 100% accuracy, we can also differentiate many European ethnic groups with an accuracy approaching 100% aswell. Even closely related ethnic groups like the Swedes and Norwegians can be identified with over 90% accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon,

      I'd recommend you read my other posts on the topic to make more sense of your claims. Just because a population has genetic structure to it does not mean that the broken branches warrant separate taxonomy. In addition, different manners of analysis warrant different racial groupings (see my comment above in response to Magnus).

      http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/03/mailbag-race-gene-clusters-and-fst.html
      http://paintyourpanda.blogspot.com/2014/03/forensic-anthropology-and-race.html

      In reality, it depends on what you're looking at, and even then it can be problematic because you're forcing the data to conform to predetermined parameters.

      Delete

WARNING: Please read the Comment Guidelines page before posting!

Sometimes comments won't go through properly, so if you write a lot and are concerned about losing your work, please save your comment in a separate text document before posting. Keep it saved until you're sure your comment has been received/published.