The Term "Race"

general reply

It's interesting to note how people can be so hung-up on such a decisive term as "race."

Some scientific insight:

there is a biological and genetic basis for distinguishing race, however, biologists generally don't use the term race anymore. we generally use the terms subspecies, variety or population.

1st: different "races" can be distinguished genetically. example, given tissues from a random sample of humans (from the entire global human population), one could determine which samples came from caucasians, blacks, japanese, chinese, etc.

2nd: these different "races" originated from independent human populations that were virtually isolated genetically, and could be distinguished using population genetics methodology

3rd: secondary genetic mixing (what we see today) obfuscate the original population genetic distinctiveness, however, genetic markers remain that allow one to distinguish between "races."

Some comments on some replies:

- constellations and races is not a good analogy. constellations are entirely a human construct (like finding images in the clouds) while "races" are a natural biological phenomenon.

- birds and humans are not a good analogy. Birds are a class of animals (Class Aves, cf. Class Mammalia), humans are a species of animal. The analogy with dogs is better.

- Neville said, "in the contemporary world there is so much mixture of genetics and race." This is the way I view it (see my 2nd point above) however, morphology (race) is dependent (at least in part) by genetic components.

- evolution is a natural phenomenon. the phrase "popularity of evolution," is like saying the popularity of gravity, it's nonsense.

- science is materialistic, religion is metaphysics, notwithstanding the facets of the diamond tastybrain is examining. religion is belief, not testable, not predictive and not falsifiable. The "test for this, test for that. test again. observe. record. test again" exemplifies the predictive nature of science.

- Fraggle Rocker has brought up an excellent point on the nature of "species." The biological species concept uses no genetic yardstick for species characterization. So, yes one could call wolf and dog different species and humans one species even if genetic variability within humans is greater than the variability between wolves and dogs.
 
The biological definition of a species is and I quote from “Principle of Genetics” 8th addition by Gardner, Simmons and Snustad.

“… comprises of related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring”

Enough said about species. Yes dogs and wolfs are the same species! Horse and donkeys are not! The Weaver and Grill finch are not the same species even though the hybrids can reproduce. This is because the hybrid has no clue how to make a nest and cannot raise the young.

How to define a subspecies is total up to you in fact many taxonomist don’t even touch that subject anymore. If you want to put people into different subspecies or races go right ahead. I don’t give a dam, after a species all classifications are all made up and hearsay.
 
reply on species

well, i can't tell you what a martian would do or think, but i can tell you that there is no set amount of genetic divergence where one can say, "all right, these are now different species." that's not the way the currently accepted species concept works (i.e. the biological species concept as constructed by Mayr).

The consistency of the species concept lies in the definition of species quoted by WellCookedFetus (although I must say it's a very limited definition and I can only hope the text delves further into the species concept). However there are inconsistencies as well. Dogs and wolves are not the same species, even though they produce viable offspring, primarily because they do not reproduce in nature and don't form intermingling populations. for example, dogs, wolves, AND coyotes can all intermingle and produce viable off spring, but are different species because they are behaviorally distinct enough to form separate populations that are able to coexist (overlapping ranges) without co-mingling. But this is not the worst of the inconsistencies, because there are hemaphroditic species (i.e. individuals don't have sex to reproduce, with many examples, especially in plants) but we can't make each individual a separate species.

The worst part is that the biological species concept is non-dimensional. This means that it cannot address the distinctiveness of species that do not coexist in time and space.

Clearly species are real biological entities and not just some made up human classification term, but, also as clearly, the current species concept (I should say conceptS because there are a few out there) is inadequate in many respects.

a genus is a group of species that are all related evolutionarily (by common descent) but generally are NOT able to intermingle reproductively.

I don't agree with WellCookedFetus that all higher taxa are human conctructs. I think, and most of my colleagues would agree, that higher taxa are real biological entities. For example, take seals. There are many species and genera of seals as well as a few families, but a seal is a seal and is recognizable by any layperson. Furthermore seals are recognizable morphologically by biologists and are distinguishable genetically. This group is a real biological entity, not just some made up classification. S.J. Gould wrote a good essay on the subject in "The Panda's Thumb" entitled 'A quahog is a quahog.'

The problem is that normal biology texts do not (and cannot) go into the complexities of taxonomy, systematics and species concepts; but the needed information to answer one's questions about this stuff are in books or journals one needs a biology degree to be able to read.

For those really interested in this stuff, may I suggest reading Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought" (in particular the chapter titled 'Microtaxonomy, the science of species').
 
why we shouldn't use race

Originally posted by paulsamuel
It's interesting to note how people can be so hung-up on such a decisive term as "race."
Click to expand...

there might be a reason why we get so hung up....that might also be the same reason why the classification race isn't really in use anymore.

you mention subspecies, varieties and populations as the new terms. But were would race fit in then. I am quite certain there are no subspecies of humans. There is variety, but are there varieties? are there then only populations? But populations is not as strong (or loaded) as race. Hence when people use race for different human beings they make a mistake (deliberate or accidental). They emphasize the difference between people, while in reality, the human population could be rather homogenous, compared to other species.
I hope i made myself clear...
 
Thanks for the tip... though the biological definition, you have to admit is pretty effective nothing is perfect! I’m a year and half away from being a biochemist… not a taxonomist, so give me a break here! Since you seem to be much closer to the field of taxonomy lets move back to the many issue of this forum: Are humans defined into subspecies, I’m very sure were not (as of recently: don’t get me started about that guy in the 1700’s that said we were!)? Can you give a use a reasonable definition of “Race”?

I have heard of cases in which dogs and wolfs had breed in the wild and since the puppies usually survived to continue breeding I figured that defined them as the same species.
 
continued discussion on "race"

the problem with the term race is that it was originally used to identify variability in a species. however the terms variety and race were used ambiguously and vaguely and interchangebly. some old essays and texts and articles can use the single term "race" or "variety" within a single text and have it mean different things. post-Darwinian biologists eventually stopped using the term as it did not have any real biological meaning. its retention today is purely historical. so race would not fit into any biological terminology.

however, there are obviously distinct populations of humans. these different populations of humans probably originated from a single source population in Africa, migrated out, and genetically diverged in virtual isolation for millenia.

there was one subspecies of human that we know of and that is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (i.e. Neanderthal man, cf. contemporary humans H. sapiens sapiens).

as the earth becomes virtually smaller (due to technological advances in travel) human populations that were once isolated and distinct become homogenized and is why the study in brazil that Eflex cited had the results it reported.

race definition: i don't know about this. race is defined in the dictionary as a group of humans, related by common descent, that share certain physical characteristics (such as skin color) that are inherited. this definition appears to be inadequate now that a single genealogical family can have both white and black members (therefore to separate them by race based on these inherited characteristics would violate the common descent criterium).

BTW, that guy in the 18th century was Herbert Spencer (considered the father of social darwinism). he really did not have a biological view of evolution as can be seen by his definition of evolution; "Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation." Whatever that means.
 
Saying Neanderthal Man is a subspecies these days is pretty controversial: There is still know proof that they breed with modern man or Cro-Magnon man. Genetic evidence is against it, though because of the samples age it is very decayed and unreliable. Still if Neanderthals did breed with us (most likely with early Europeans) it would explain my uncle’s disposition.
 
I get the picture. Dumpsters in the back of McDonalds are like african watering holes. 8) Various species are forced to intermingle due to a common need. Thus it catalizes interbreeding.

Two species have no compunctions about breeding provided the female is in heat. The following illustrates this: My mother had a pet skunk many years ago and it went into heat. It walked around in circles grunting until her pet cat went over and screwed its brains out. They both had fun but sadly they were far too distantly related to produce offspring.
 
continued discussion on species

The published evidence is that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis bred with Homo sapiens sapiens shown by genetic evidence in the mitochondrial and nuclear genome. This genetic evidence could be mistaken, but there IS genetic evidence that they interbred, there IS NO evidence that they did not.

The red wolf is in southeastern America not northeastern.

http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/info/red-wolf.htm

The red wolf remains an endangered species. The controversy was not that it wasn't a real subspecies of wolf, but that introgression of coyote genes, through hybridization, into the red wolf genome meant that we were not preserving the red wolf anymore, but some wolf-coyote hybrid. It was therefore suggested that the red wolf be taken off the endangered species list since it was virtually extinct (no pure genetic individuals remaining). When species become rare, behavioral reproductive isolating mechanisms can break down leading to hybridizations. In a related note, the break down of behavioral reproductive isolating mechanisms are thought to contribute to the "founder flush" of island colonizing animals where a few colonizing individuals lead to many different speciation events. Examples are the Hawaiian Drosophila and Drepanidinae birds.

So, wolves and coyotes remain distinct species even thogh rare hybridization takes place in the wild.

The genus definition is correct. I am not inclined to check to see if all your examples of hybridizations in the wild are correct, however hybridization events are rare enough that they do not disrupt species distinctiveness even when congeneric species (species of the same genus) are coexisting (e.g. the wild cats and ungulates of the african savannah). The limited species definition that WellCookedFetus provided is correct, species are reproductively isolated from other species whether in the same genus or not. There are many more examples of inability to hybridize than there are examples of hybridizations.

Certainly civilization encroachment will effect the biology and ecology of flora and fauna however it is doubtful that new species will be created due to hybridization.

We are not trying to perpetuate anything, we are trying to understand and learn. We go to the wilderness because that is the natural habitat of the organisms we study and where behavior and ecology are not confounded by encroaching civilization. Species are distinct only because they don't interbreed.
 
I have heard the same mitochondria evidence claim the contrary that Neanderthal and Homo sapiens were genetically districted! :bugeye:

Neanderthal racially mixing with the modern humans are virtually denied by recent studies of the mitochondrial DNA of the Homo neanderthalensis. Analysis of the DNA indicated the Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens separated from a common ancestor approximately 600 thousand years ago.
Click to expand...

http://www.saitama-kenpaku.com/jinrui/special/english/number/11_E/factor02_01.htm
 
Last edited:
reply to WellCookedFetus

obviously the matter is more controversial than i thought, but see

Mol Biol Evol 2002 Aug;19(8):1359-66
Ê
A reanalysis of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered from Neandertal bones.

Gutierrez G, Sanchez D, Marin A.

Recent reports analyzing mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neandertal bones have claimed that Neandertals and modern humans are different species. The phylogenetic analyses carried out in these articles did not take into account the high substitution rate variation among sites observed in the human mitochondrial D-loop region and also lack an estimation of the parameters of the nucleotide substitution model. The separate phylogenetic position of Neandertals is not supported when these factors are considered. Our analysis shows that Neandertal-Human and Human-Human pairwise distance distributions overlap more than what previous studies suggested. We also show that the most ancient Neandertal HVI region is the most divergent when compared with modern human sequences. However, the opposite would be expected if the sequence had not been modified since the death of the specimen. Such incongruence is discussed in the light of diagenetic modifications in ancient Neandertal DNA sequences.
 
re: DNA

you said, "basically genetic evidence is impossible the DNA is to decayed"

That is not correct. The DNA is there, it may be fragmented, but can still be sequenced no problem. Age cannot change the DNA sequence. All it can do is break it into smaller pieces (but minimum size is still around 250 bp).

http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic2.htm
 
Re: re: DNA

Originally posted by paulsamuel
you said, "basically genetic evidence is impossible the DNA is to decayed"

That is not correct. The DNA is there, it may be fragmented, but can still be sequenced no problem. Age cannot change the DNA sequence. All it can do is break it into smaller pieces (but minimum size is still around 250 bp).

http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/genetic2.htm
Click to expand...

Yes but individual nucleotides can be lost from the ends of each broken fragment resulting in data loss in general. Trust me on this, it is my field. Also each fragement had to go through repeated PCRs which are prone to mutations. A error of 20 nucleotides out of 100,000 is all it takes in this case.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that anyone who believes that different human races exist are a 'racist' (as someone has said). I agree with that statement but i would also have to say that different species (races!) of animals have been identified by physical characteristics and not on a biological basis. Black birds are identified by there looks as is a starling. I am aware that this could cause outrage among some people but chinese people do have different physical characteristics from other nationalities: their eyes for one. Black people also have different physical characteristics. There should not be any argument with the categorization of people but it is when these different categories are used for negative means: genecide. To deny the existence of human races seems silly to me. It seems quite clear that they do exist and it is thought that the only reason people are opposed to this is becuase in the past it has been used for the wrong reasons.
 
reply to WellCookedFetus

it's my field too. i reckon i've done more than 10,000 PCR reactions and sequenced probably 1,000,000 bp's. even in the old days before automated sequencing (we used radioactive labels back then, but we still used the Sanger method, i.e. dideoxy nucleotides with random termination).

you're right that Taq polymerase doesn't correct errors which can be randomly incorporated (app. 1 bp in 1000), however this is a characteristic of PCR, not ancient DNA. The difficulties with ancient DNA are, not with the PCR, but with the DNA extraction and contamination (particularly with human DNA).

data loss is a problem because you get a virtual loss of DNA concentration in degraded samples, but this can be overcome.

do a google search with key words "ancient" and "DNA."
 
I know what you talking about but if there was contamination from human DNA then there would have been positive result rather then negative ones. Still were both saying the same thing: the results are not accurate not full proof.
 
Originally posted by Neville
I am aware that this could cause outrage among some people but chinese people do have different physical characteristics from other nationalities: their eyes for one. Black people also have different physical characteristics. There should not be any argument with the categorization of people but it is when these different categories are used for negative means: genecide. To deny the existence of human races seems silly to me. It seems quite clear that they do exist and it is thought that the only reason people are opposed to this is becuase in the past it has been used for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe there are differences, but the problem is of course that you emphasize on these minor meaningless differences. What is remarkable, however, is how similar we all are. You might think denying of races is silly, but i think it is real silly that you put emphasis on something so trivial as slightly different eyelid shape.

Why do people seek importance in trivialities? Probably upbringing and cultural influences. Not scientific education.
 
I have heard a hypothesis that hybriding with other "races" produces children with better immune systems. It sounds logical any one think it isn't?
 
peole are usually attracted to people that are dissimilar to their immediate family. In one experiment it was discovered that people thinki their family stinks, and unknown people smell nice...

maybe there is an inbuilt mechanism that encourages to mate with another individual that has new genes to offer for the offspring. Maybe this also improves the changes for a good immunesystem. But I definately don't know, i'm just speculating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top