Dragon Horse wrote:
I'm not counting "ethnicity" as race. Y ou can be the same race and be of different ethnic groups.
DH has apparently forgotten that the rules of objectivity and replicability are stricter in the technical and scholarly forums than in the political advocacy forums. He has 24 hours to either produce an objective and replicable definition of "race" or to produce a peer-reviewed source published within the past ten years that affirms the biological reality of races (subspecies, breeds, varieties) in H. sapiens
As the last sentence of rule 3.3.2 puts it: "Site members should be extremely cautious in using this term ["race"]. Its use without quotation marks tells nothing about the subject but reveals the ignorance of the user." The Technical and Scholarly group of forums does not tolerate that depth of ignorance. See also, rule 3.1.3 "Before posting an opinion on molecular anthropology or genetics, you must have read at least one introductory textbook on this topic and be able to name it."
Sorry, I should have defined this...
Race according to this site is:
3.3.1 race (in biology) or bio-race — A sub-division of a species that is identifiable by a cluster of traits that vary together geographically. For example, the key lime and the Mexican lime are two races of Citrus aurantifolia that differ in several traits including peel thickness and color. Synonyms are: subspecies, variety, breed. No cluster of geographically co-varying traits (bio-race) has ever been found in Homo sapiens.
When I said race, I was not using the tem as in "subspecies", this does not exist in any human population..
If there have been no clustering of "geographically co-varying traits" found in humans than how is a study like this possible? The article below speaks specifically mentions lactose tolerance in East Africans and Europeans, skin color in Asians and Europeans, and a brain gene in Chinese and EUroepans..etc. Are these not co-varying genes that express co-varying traits?
I was using race in place of "population group" which is really what this study is based on.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26human.htm
That lactose tolerance has evolved independently four times is an instance of convergent evolution. Natural selection has used the different mutations available in European and East African populations to make each develop lactose tolerance. In Africa, those who carried the mutation were able to leave 10 times more progeny, creating a strong selective advantage.
Researchers studying other single genes have found evidence for recent evolutionary change in the genes that mediate conditions like skin color, resistance to malaria and salt retention.
The most striking instances of recent human evolution have emerged from a new kind of study, one in which the genome is scanned for evidence of selective pressures by looking at a few hundred thousand specific sites where variation is common.
Last year Benjamin Voight, Jonathan Pritchard and colleagues at the University of Chicago searched for genes under natural selection in Africans, Europeans and East Asians. In each race, some 200 genes showed signals of selection, but without much overlap, suggesting that the populations on each continent were adapting to local challenges.
Another study, by Scott Williamson of Cornell University and colleagues, published in PLoS Genetics this month, found 100 genes under selection in Chinese, African-Americans and European-Americans.
In most cases, the source of selective pressure is unknown. But many genes associated with resistance to disease emerge from the scans, confirming that disease is a powerful selective force. Another category of genes under selective pressure covers those involved in metabolism, suggesting that people were responding to changes in diet, perhaps associated with the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture.
Several genes involved in determining skin color have been under selective pressure in Europeans and East Asians. But Dr. Pritchard’s study detected skin color genes only in Europeans, and Dr. Williamson found mostly genes selected in Chinese.
The reason for the difference is that Dr. Pritchard’s statistical screen detects genetic variants that have become very common in a population but are not yet universal. Dr. Williamson’s picks up variants that have already swept through a population and are possessed by almost everyone.
The findings suggest that Europeans and East Asians acquired their pale skin through different genetic routes and, in the case of Europeans, perhaps as recently as around 7,000 years ago.
The concept of race as having a biological basis is controversial, and most geneticists are reluctant to describe it that way. But some say the genetic clustering into continent-based groups does correspond roughly to the popular conception of racial groups.
So for the sake of this conversation I will use "race" as a substitute for "continental based population clusters" found in this article since they heavily overlap with the notion of race we currently use in America.
Most whites in America have ancestry predominately from Europe or a border region of Europe.
Most "Asians" have predominant ancestral lines to the Asian continent.
Most "blacks" are predominately of subSaharan African ancestry...although due to social convention (one drop rule) there are those who are predominately or intermediate admixture of European ancestry who are "black" (African American) in the United States.
So this is my meaning.
The NY Times and the scientist in the article seem to support this notion that humans do have genetically based population clusters and that is (not perfectly) but fairly interchangeable with population notions of race, as we know it in the U.S. in 2008.
George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”