Refutation of Lewontin's arguments against race

[android]

Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy.

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/lewontindebunked.pdf

Two others:
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002443.html

 

[CharonZ]

Well, another interesting read:
Annual Review article

The gist is that we do not have well defined concept of race as such. The only thing that is sure is that it is not a clear taxon as "species".
Abstract:

Geneticists are interested in finding genes associated with disease. Because of widespread health disparities, race is a variable that is often said to be relevant in this context. The idea is that members of a preconceived "race" share common ancestry that may include genetic risk factors. Human variation has been shaped by the long-term processes of population history, and population samples that reflect that history carry statistical information about shared genetic variation or "ancestry." But race is an elusive concept and a term difficult even to define rigorously. Unfortunately, these problems are neither new nor related to recent genetic knowledge. Race is also one of the most politically charged subjects in American life because its associated sociocultural component has notoriously led to categorical treatment that has been misleading and politically misused. There are ways in which the concept of race (whether or not the term is used) can be a legitimate tool in the search for disease-associated genes. But in that context race reflects deeply confounded cultural as well as biological factors, and a careful distinction must be made between race as a statistical risk factor and causal genetic variables.

Another interesting point is this:

Knowledge from the Human Genome Project and research on human genome variation increasingly challenges the applicability of the term 'race' to human population groups, raising questions about the validity of inferences made about 'race' in the biomedical and scientific literature. Despite the acknowledged contradictions in contemporary science, population-based genetic variation is continually used to explain differences in health between 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups. In this commentary we posit that resolution of apparent paradoxes in relating biology to 'race' and genetics requires thinking 'outside of the box'.

Article

And another one

Overall it is obvious that the term race is used in very different contexts, even within a scientific frame. Quite often also defined, or rather ill-defined due to misuse of statistics or sample bias. It is likely that advances in genetics will shift the focus from race to genetic groups given time:

Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.

 

[qwerty mob]

Overall it is obvious that the term race is used in very different contexts, even within a scientific frame. Quite often also defined, or rather ill-defined due to misuse of statistics or sample bias. It is likely that advances in genetics will shift the focus from race to genetic groups given time:

Indeed, those contexts need to be observed from the outset, otherwise there will be no common ground between racialists and non-; that "there is no scientific basis for racism" is a legitimate neutral position between both the deniers and racists (since "we are all evolutionary survivors" in essence), and in any discourse the various contexts in which one will use the term "race" should be clearly defined and consistently applied in order to avoid semantic and logical equivocation, and better distinguish between the philosophical "conceptual reality" (on which level racisms are memetically transferred and culturally perpetuated) from the scientific "biological reality" (in which organizations of lineages play a utilitarian role, because they are drafted out of necessity for characterization, not sophistry, and are tied to objective science).

That merely "Refuting Lewontin" (or grossly misrepresenting Gould, or any other such "debunking" idiocy) in any way affirms race as a "genetic reality" is absurd; the fact that there is "greater genetic variation within Human karyotypes then between phenotypes" stands undisputed, objective, and reverifiable- only the interpretation of what this means can legitimately be contested. Where our genes are, and what they do, is vital to understanding Human evolution; they are not all "junk" or "drift material"- and the distances between them are significant evolutionary markers.


I suggest that the proper view of Human racialism is a skeptical one; that "the science just doesn't support racialist philosophy."

...

To quote me, since that will likely also be the last unethical card played by "android" (less well known as "infoterror" elsewhere) on this topic, and any other:

02-09-06, 06:35 AM

It is incumbent upon any supporter of racialism to advance some new thinking in light of the sample depth and breadth of the HGP; spare their adversaries repackaged straw men, exotropic conflation fallacies, xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and naked denials.

Beginning with a working specific definition of "race" which has some basis in anything but phenotypic preferences.

Otherwise, it's the same-old fallacious meme it ever was.

...

I accept his silence on the specific point of "never being able to attain 100% certainty of race" as a stark naked admission that neither he, nor his net-pals, have an answer to the open end of Edwards' analysis, much less a working definition of race regarding Humans which differs from racialism.

Even when one resorts to "three standard deviations under a normal curve" to explain statistical certainty, they will still be voiceless to harmonize the term "races" regarding present day Humans.

I've even left the figurative "door open" for racialists to propose something new, yet instead all one sees anywhere is the same old "Debunking Lewontin" crap... and worse.

Shame, that.

 

[android]

That merely "Refuting Lewontin" (or grossly misrepresenting Gould, or any other such "debunking" idiocy) in any way affirms race as a "genetic reality" is absurd; the fact that there is "greater genetic variation within Human karyotypes then between phenotypes" stands undisputed, objective, and reverifiable- only the interpretation of what this means can legitimately be contested. Where our genes are, and what they do, is vital to understanding Human evolution; they are not all "junk" or "drift material"- and the distances between them are significant evolutionary markers.

I don't think you understood the refutation: Lewontin's data is inapplicable to the concept or discussion of race. Like 10 million other irrelevant things he could have proven, his conclusion does not follow from his data. Warning: you need an understanding of basic logical thought, not just memorization of statistics, to understand this argument.

 

[android]

It is incumbent upon any supporter of racialism to advance some new thinking in light of the sample depth and breadth of the HGP; spare their adversaries repackaged straw men, exotropic conflation fallacies, xenophobia, hyper-nationalism, and naked denials.

Beginning with a working specific definition of "race" which has some basis in anything but phenotypic preferences.

Your statement is in itself a strawman; because you have not seen the correct definitions of race according to racialists, you assume that they do not exist.

Ignorance is no excuse, pal.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

We do not use race. We use the term subspecies.

Join us in the new millenium.

 

[android]

We do not use race. We use the term subspecies.

Join us in the new millenium.

So exchanging terms makes you feel better? The new millennium has more errors than the old; mind if I out-progress you and simply stick to what's true?

LOL

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The subdivision Subspecies has strict definitions. It is not hocus pocus science or renaming something old. It is about having a meaningful concept for the biological sciences.

 

[android]

The subdivision Subspecies has strict definitions.

So does race, if you don't elect to read the wrong sources and make a strawman out of it

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I'd rather not be forced to read crap racist sites if you don't mind. We shall restrict ourselves to peer-reviewed papers. Recent ones. That means the last decade, not the last millenium.

 

[android]

I don't see any "crap racist" sites. Which did you have in mind?

Also, the peer-review system is not without fault, so I'd like to restrict my reading to logically constructed arguments, only.

Meaning, the source is less important than the content

Unless you're afraid of some of the conclusions? I cannot see any other reason for your fearful, paranoiac reaction.