Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 16

Part 5

 * p.s. What Edwards' paper says is that Fst will not tell us if races exist. --Rikurzhen 23:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * p.p.s. For anyone interested in reading more on genetics and race, check out Nature Genetics November 2004, Volume 36 No 11s --Rikurzhen 23:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

RE: I'd like to draw your attention to what they said in Nature:

''Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.'' -- Orionix 03:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ¤ Do they give examples of the seldom-seen cases where human populations are "demarcated by precise genetic boundaries"? This is a really crucial issue, and I'm astounded to find such an assertion. What are they thinking of? Blood types? Ear wax types? (Seriously.) P0M 04:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I too believe, against Rikurzhen, that the last two paragraphs are accurate. I would however accept the claim that the last two paragraphs represent only one point of view.  I suspect Rikurzhen represents a different point of view.  The article should accomodate both. Slrubenstein 20:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¤ Please do other readers a break and sign your postings. I lost the thread of who was saying what after a while.

¤ One question is: "What do we really find by empirical studies?" Another question is: "What are the several systems by which these data are conceptualized by (at least the most) prevalent voices in our world?" Let's look at some limit cases: (1) Humans have been divided into two or more breeding populations from the beginning of the human race. (Adam and Eve had X number of male children and Y number of female children, they formed families and each family was delivered to a different continent that was forever isolated from all other continents. (2) Humans have never been divided into "inbred" populations. Instead, they have such perfect institutions of exogamy that the genetic constitution of humans are perfectly homogeneous. What we find, in reality, is neither of these extreme. The closest we probably ever came was the Australians vs. the rest of the world during the time before the first Western sailor jumped ship.  Nobody seems to write on the subject, but I think it would be enlightening to know what alleles were absolutely not found elsewhere in the world?P0M

¤ One thing we need to keep in mind in all of this is that in ordinary human life a century is a long time. But a century, or even a thousand years, is not very long to be isolated genetically. In terms of breeding groups being isolated, a separation of a hundred years is, I would guess, no more significant than a separation of a hundred minutes. If it is true that " 'Race' is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics," then when the language and other learned differences are abstracted from the picture there are still the biologically determined "outward physical characteristics." So there could be (and maybe there is) a definition of "race" that is purely composed on the grounds of these inherited physical characteristics.

¤ Without some real numbers to attach to these ideas, the entire discussion seems rather vapid to me. Suppose that it were found that Australian First Nations people shared a narrow range of skin colors (on a bell curve that had very steep shoulders so that, e.g., white Australian First Nations people were statistically rarer than hen's teeth), a narrow range of susceptibility to UV induced skin cancer, etc., etc. Knowledge that they also had an extreme intolerance to low levels of oxygen coupled with low barometric pressure so that it would be a virtual death sentence to force one of them on a military mission to the top of Ki8limanjaro would then be a very useful and dependable "fact" that could be assumed true for almost all practical purposes. Suppose, on the other hand, that the susceptibility of some of them to UV induced skin cancer were almost as great as that of the average citizen of Iceland while the susceptibility of others was on a par with the darkest people from Malawi, and that all other bell curves we could look at had very wide shoulders with gentle slopes, no plateau at the center, etc. If the numbers turned out that way then the utility of predictions based on their common descent would be virtually nil. But where do the real numbers lie?

¤ One real problem with the idea of [race] is that we don't seem to know the shape of these bell curves very well. Another real problem is that we don't know whether it is an accident that, e.g., people who are very light are also people who have a high tendency to retain the ability to produce lactase throughout life rather than losing it after the normal age of weening. I need to be careful about what I mean here. It is, I think, a statistical fact that in populations that have a high percentage of very light individuals there will also be a high percentage of people who will happily consume milk all of their lives. But what I am interested in is whether the capacity for continuing production of lactase can migrate to a group of people living at some remote place and yet not be accompanied by light skins. If the characteristics that human intelligence uses to constitute a [race] are "peelable", if white skins can be separated from prolonged lactase production, that makes the idea of a [race] much less interesting or useful.

¤ The rationale for importing one subspecies of honeybee to South America from Africa was that those bees were exceptionally vigorous -- in terms of honey and/or pollen production. It was the intention of researchers to cross those bees with the bees that had been naturalized to that area since the arrival of explorers and settlers sometime after 1492, and to selectively breed their progeny so as to keep the vigor of the African bees and keep the gentleness of the bees that were regularly managed by beekeepers in that area. Things got out of control, and it seems that the belligerance of the crossbred bees that escaped has been selectively favored by the environment, while little is said of the vigor of these bees in producing honey and pollen. In this case it would seem that the other characteristics of Africa bees have not stayed clustered, since it is said to be difficult to identify the Africanized bees except by assaying their temperament. (There is, I think, one other measure that can be taken in the field. The bad temperament seems to be very frequently associated with an unusual frequency of wing movements in flight. Perhaps genes governing these two characteristics are found on the same chromosome.) P0M

¤ Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the materials I have studied thusfar says that there is no characteristic that is welded to another characteristic. P0M 02:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe item number (5) in my list of distinctions to be made when discussing race is: whether we're describing what people mean when they talk about race in their daily lives versus how researchers might choose to re-definite race in order to have a better definition. The former is most clearly a social construct in the sense that social convention plays a part in determining what groups we draw; and truly there is no biological reason for dividing people the way the US census does. As to the latter, that is a very active question in the scientific community. The question is whether a genetic (i.e. genotype) classification system with countably few groups is valid, and if so in what ways could it be useful; also to what extent does self-described ancestry correspond to that classification system? So in that context, a discussion about phenotypes and using phenotypes for classification is somewhat beside the point. Instead, genotyping would be used: a hundred or so markers can give strong resolution. (To get absolute resolution you might need around 10^5 markers. Eventually, this kind of analysis will be relatively inexpensive.) These markers (loci) will most likely not be directly associated with any visible phenotype, but they may be linked to loci that are. No single loci is fully informative, but the combined power of dozens (or hundreds) is strongly informative. --Rikurzhen 07:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * For example, consider this quotation: "If people from different continents -- chosen to maximize the level of genetic differentiation among groups -- are stripped of ancestry information, how many markers are required to distinguish groups and reliably allocate individuals into these groups? For a sample of 200 individuals from sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and East Asia, correct allocation to the continent of origin with a mean accuracy of 90% requires 60 randomly selected Alu insertion polymorphisms or STRs. The mean accuracy of allocation improves to 99Ð100% with the use of a modest 100Ð160 markers. What if individuals are sampled from broader geographical regions? Rosenberg et al. studied 52 ethnic groups distributed worldwide and allocated each of 1,000 individuals into 1 of 5 different genetic clusters using 377 randomly selected STRs. Each cluster represented people whose ancestors were typically isolated by large geographical barriers: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. These studies confirmed that there is a relationship between patterns of genetic variation and geographical ancestry; with a high degree of accuracy and reliability using a relatively modest number of multilocus genotypes, individuals can indeed be allocated to groups that represent broad geographical regions. " -- --Rikurzhen 07:42, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here again they are talking about geographically structured human diversity. Take note that a study of 1000 people that comes up with 377 different observable polymorphisms is in itself a very good indication that human biodiversity is by far more complex than racial theory can deal with. Race was never defined as a geographic correlation between one or another characteristic. It was quite clearly definied as exclusive and stable genetic types. Such types do not exist among humans. Also check out the cline article -- Orionix 19:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here again I must be a broken record. You are talking about race as if the definition were singular and immutable. I believe I understand fully your point: that human population structure does not support the "Essentialist," "Population," or "Taxonomic" defintions of race -- and indeed I would endorse that point of view. However, the quotation I pasted above is pretty clearly compatible with the "Lineage" defintion of race. The lineage defintion is the one presently being considered in light of emerging genetic evidence. The PDF you linked is a open-access copy of the Nature Reviews Genetics article I quoted from -- everyone interested should read it. As a side note, I believe your interpretation fo the Rosenberg data is incorrect. Using 377 randomly selected markers, they were in fact able to identify 5 genetic clusters (i.e. races by the lineage defintion) in which allocate 1000 individuals from 52 ethnic groups. The number of markers required for identity is of no consequence to the lineage definition -- because the markers are being used to infer ancestry. An alternative experiment could have simply asked the people which contients their grandparents came from -- although there would have been greater error from this "marker". --Rikurzhen 21:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Lineage, cline or cluster is not the same as race so why confuse oranges with apples? -- Orionix 02:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the abstact for the Rosenberg paper: "We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies." -- --Rikurzhen 03:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

¤ I have no idea what is going on in the above several paragraphs. Is Rikurzhen "talking to himself"? Does it only appear that way because he has not kept a contant level of indentation? Is somebody else chipping in comments without signing? It looks that way, but if so, why not sign. Or, better, do what I sometimes do when back-and-forth gets complex. Start a paragraph as I did this one (Obviously you will want to use some other distinctive mark.)


 * Sorry P0M, that's a quotation from the source listed. I've changed the formatting so it should make sense. --Rikurzhen 03:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

¤ I am trying to get down to one brass tack -- something that I think is the crux of the matter. I will put it in dogmatic terms this time around: There is no characteristic that is inextricably associated with another characteristic, and allele frequency depends, in the long run, on the suitability to the environment of the organism that it confers. Therefore characteristics such as inherited (not independent mutation-derived) sickle cell anemia can appear at high frequencies in populations plagued by malaria regardless of the skin color, average height, frequency of spontaneous lack of wisdom teeth, or any other heritable characteristic. P0M 03:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I must be confusing everybody. If someone understands what I'm trying to explain and can do so better than I can, please step in and help. --Rikurzhen 03:16, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * If all else fails, this freely accessible PDF that Orionix found might be helpful: --Rikurzhen 03:38, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

¤ I just read the article. Although it added a few wrinkles it seems to me to fit in pretty well with what I have tried to say here and below. It is at least clear and honest about making an assumption to account for the appearance of a characteristic with survival value across a large geographical gap. It is very good about making one point that I think is central to the uses that one can legitimately make in the case of attributions of clade membership: If you can measure the trait directly, there is no excuse for fudging the data by "deriving" a presumed measurement on the basis of clade membership. So you should not assume that somebody is rh-positive just because of his/her ancestry. Before the baby comes the parents should get their blood tested.

¤ Now that I think I am probably on the same page with Rikurzhen I should re-read what Orionix has stated. I don't recall disagreeing with anything he said, either. P0M 04:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "lineage" definition of race
Orionix's last question made me think that maybe I understand the source of the confusion. According to Long and Kittles (2003), one biological definition of race that is found in the scientific literature is what they call the "lineage" definition. They offer this quotation as an example of the lineage definition of race: "A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation" (Templeton, 1998). This is (at least at first glance) the definition of race that I recognize as being the modern scientific definition at the heart of the current debate regarding emerging genetic data. Everything I've written above is about race in the context of this definition. I don't think it's appropriate to say that this definition isn't race, although I can imagine that this definition is limited in use to certain fields (e.g. geneticists). I believe the lineage definition should be included in the article, although it may be the most difficult to describe because it is so new relative to other definitions -- that is, there is no real consensus on whether it is valid. --Rikurzhen 07:24, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

¤ The definition Rikurzhen offers is also the one that I have foremost in mind when I try to understand what other people may mean by the term. I don't think many people would agree that we can meaningfully/correctly talk about "the race of Loglan speakers" even though people have been willing to write books on [races] of people who are most clearly distinguished from other [races] of people by the language they speak, e.g., "the Irish race." The trouble with the "race of Loglan speakers is that, as an artificial language, there is no one genetically related group of people (excepting the group of all Homo sapiens sapiens) that speaks the language in contradistinction to another group. I don't think this definition is particularly difficult to describe -- in the abstract. The trouble is that while the average Ainu person (for instance) closely resembles other typical Ainu, and looks distinctly different from the average Japanese person, the actual history of ancestries of the average Ainu shows a substantial number of Japanese ancestors -- or at least that is what the genetic evidence indicates. The Japanese-Ainu split is one of those that is very strongly reinforced by differences in appearance, language, and culture. But even in that case there is both genetic and personal historical evidence to show that the boundary is permeable. The trouble most people will have when looking at the definition Rikurzhen offers is understanding how, e.g., 30% (I think that is the right number) of "white" Americans have "black" ancestry.

¤ The other difficulty in understanding the underlying reality is that people imagine that if, let us say, an Ainu moved to the U.S. and possessed one benefitial trait that very significantly increased the survivability of his/her progeny, and also produced several traits that mitigated against survival, then the beneficial characteristic could prosper and be passed down and spread throughout the population in x number of generations and yet the negative characteristics could be weeded out. (Some negative characteristics do not rapidly get weeded out because they don't become lethal unless both of the relevant chromosomes have the gene for that characteristic.)Most people would probably assume that if an allele that made someone resistant to some serious endemic disease was found on the same chromosome that had the allele that provided for blue skin color, then people who had the resistance would always have the skin color, and vice-versa. In other words, they would incorrectly assume that because the two alleles were on the same chromosome they would be forever linked with each other.

¤ "The subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation." But we don't even find these two conditions met for all of what are casually referred to as "races of bees." There is a historical continuity between Italian bees and Carniolian bees -- both within these groups, historically with some ancestor [race], and in the not-narrow "band of hybridization." There is a genetic differentiation between the two [races], but it is not a perfect differentiation. There may have been not only a clear historical continuity among the members of the Cyprian [race], but also a sharp divergence both historically and genetically between the bees that remained behind on the mainland and the bees that first got blown or otherwise carried to that island. That situation would have fitted the definition offered above down to the time that beekeepers decided to improve their chances by importing mainland bees.

¤ In describing [race], we are actually describing various ways that humans have of categorizing individuals. We need to keep two things firmly in view: (1) the diversity that is actually there. (2) the several imprecise ways that we use to categorize people.

¤ There is a fairly rigorous connection between words and things in the case of personal pronouns. "George W. Bush" refers to a limited number of individuals, and "the George W. Bush" refers to one individual. It would be virtually impossible to put a counterfeit in his position. But "word and object" is not so neat in the case of nouns like "dog." "Is a dog with a missing ear-tip a dog?" and similar puzzles bother people who try to think carefully about conceptualization. Even so, we generally are not puzzled in practice. We don't often find human hunters carrying a horse home on the front fender of their car because they have mistaken it for a deer. We have pretty clear definitions that are very widely understood and accepted. Compared to personal names, and general names of classes of animals, names for classes of individuals that are infra-specific are actually quite murky but people may be deceived into thinking that these categorizations are on the same level of reliability as are, e.g., the kinds of domestic animals.

¤ Not only are [racial] categorizations very fuzzy, they are also very problematical. An Ainu or a Shan walking the dark streets of an American city might get shot for supposedly being a member of a hated minority. (Keep in mind that there is no majority [race], only a [race] that is in the majority in some region.) One kind of categorization that is called [racial] is used in medicine. It shares most, and potentially all, of the problems that have been outlined above: It too necessarily involves assuming things about individuals on the basis of some "tip-off" or "fingering" characteristics. All concepts are convenient fictions. Some concepts are more dependable or productive than others, but they are all fictions. We need to make it crystal clear that if somebody has all of the "salient" characteristics that "makes" him/her a member of some set, we know absolutely nothing about any of the characteristics that we haven't yet measured. P0M 23:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the differences between the four definitions. --Rikurzhen 08:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about definitions of the word "race"? Are you doing something slightly different and trying to state the rules by which individuals are categorized into [races] in several competing schemes?  Do any of these "definitions" imply that [race] is an entity to be found in the real world, rather than something analogous to constellations of stars? (The stars being the entities found in inter-personal, consentual, reality, and the constellations being the constructs built by the human imagination operating on those things that most all of us can see in the nightime sky.) P0M 08:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By my understanding: --Rikurzhen 08:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The lineage definition is based on genotype, not phenotype. Thus, it could be possible that no overt phenotypic differences existed between the lineage-races, but they could be lineage-races nontheless.
 * Lineage-races are fuzzy in the sense that group membership is not so strict so that all members have all the same marker values. Rather, similarity across all markers is what determines group membership. For example, a person of predominantly Chinese decent with curly hair would be considered East-Asian under the most common classification system.
 * The major lineage races are often enumerated: European, African, East Asian, Native American, West Asian/Indian. Further sub-categorization is possible using additional markers. It is theoretically possible to assign a single group to each unique genotype.
 * It is possible to be a member of more than one group, or even all groups; and membership can be described as fractional (e.g. 85% European, 15% African).
 * Lineage-races are approximately synomous with ancestry -- thus, continent of origin of grandparents is often used in lieu of direct genetic testing to assign group membership.
 * The lineage hypothesis is primarily substanitated by study of people with four grandparents from the same population; it is an open question whether these studies have missed intermediates that would blur the distinctions between groups as to make them not discrete enough to be useful at a global level.
 * Rates of admixture have been strong in some places but weak in others. Populations within Europe, for example, are rather homogenous at the level of random genotype markers. US "whites" and "blacks" each have a 15-20% on average ancestry from Africa and Europe respectively. US "Latinos" are a highly heterogenous group of mixed Native-American with European or African or both.
 * The concept of lineage-races seems related to the concept of genetic background from experimental genetics in non-humans (for example: ). It seems to be treated similarly in biomedical research.


 * "A great division of mankind,..." implies that there is a piece already cut out of the pie, whereas the reality is that we cut a piece out of the pie -- where we feel it would be most useful to cut it -- and then act like the piece was always loose, despite the fact that there are crumbs spread about perhaps a trail of filling from one piece to the next.
 * "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations...." Then races came into a quasi-existence sometime after people reached Australia and had been away from other humans long enough for some arbitrarily contrived cut-off point to have been reached, and races ceased to exist when the first white guy jumped ship and started spreading his genes about.
 * "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species." Possibly the most conceptually tidy of the entire group. At least it's honest when it says "aggregate" -- which clearly points a finger at the humans who do the aggregating. The fuzziness comes in most clearly when the definitions mentions individuals' "differing taxonomically" because at that point we only have to look at our own argument about the validity of the skin color tile methodology to realize that there are clear questions of human judgment and of "how much difference is enough difference to make a difference."
 * "A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species...." One lineage may be distinguished from another lineage, but it takes an intelligence (if only an artificial intelligence) to do the distinguishing. There are no discrete entities of lineage within a species because any two clades have branched off from the same main branch (species). We make things distinct, but some ways of taking things apart are more esthetically pleasing or useful than others. (This realization goes all the way back to the Phaedos of Plato where he explains philosophy as the butchering of an ox or some other domestic animal by dismembering it at the joints. To him it seems that the organism is constituted of discrete parts that will just "come apart" if we see the organism clearly.)
 * All of these definitions involve the admission (usually in an indirect way) that humans group things into [races], that humans dismember organic connections to talk about "this branch" and "that branch" as though they had detached themselves from the tree and from their cross-grafting of branches.
 * None of the definitions offered can be used to justify the implication that is clearly present in the beginning of the article as it is now written -- that [races] are some things existing "out there" just waiting for us to discover them and read their divinely sewn-in labels. P0M


 * That's an interesting question for the field of metaphysics that is probably beyond our ability as editors to provide an answer; unless we can find an essay on the topic. Personally, I think you might be confusing a few kinds of possible distinctions in object type. There are concrete objects that are "out there" so to speak. There are objects which might be called "mere collections", such as the US army -- a mere collection of people -- although I've never seen a strong case for the difference between meaningful collections and "mere" collections. There are abstract objects that are only every thought about. There are "logical fictions" like "the average man" or "the number 3" that do not actually exist, but that we talk about in as if they do. Then there are true "fictions" like Sherlock Holmes, who does not exist in the actual world. It seems to me that races are collections, and maybe "mere" collections or people. But just as we talk about the US Army as if it were a concrete object that persists and changes over time, I don't see why we need not talk about races that way.
 * Then as to the second point about mind depenedence of races, I think that's a question for relativism -- and again beyond the scope of the article. There are many who take that point of view that all knowledge  and all existence is mind dependent. I personally don't think that position is coherent. --Rikurzhen 18:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

APA issue on Race
I think these PDFs are freely available -- at least for a short time. --Rikurzhen 19:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

The intro
I restored some material to the intro that had been removed. I restored it for three reasons. First, the other version was inaccurate -- Boas believed that races exist, and Gould and Lewontin were not students of Boas or even students of students of Boas. Second, the other version introduces a specific debate between Gould/Lewontin and Rushton, and I think coverage of this debate belongs in the body. Last but not least, my version does what needs to be done in the introduction -- briefly lay out the major points of view that inform the article. This leads me to the recent discussion between Rikurzhen and POM. I think POM's point is that some people do not believe that race exists. The simple solution I think is to make clear in the introduction that some people think races exist, others do not. I think there must be a section later in the article that provides an account of this debate in detail, which is where we can introduce Boas if necessary, Gould, Lewontin, Rushton, etc. I think as long as the article is clear from the get-go that there is controversy over whether races even exist, let alone what the term refers to, and then has some section in the body covering the controversy, then we have covered our bases. We will not find one "voice" for the article that represents these two or three contending views. I think it is reasonable to have different sections giving full account of each view, and sections giving accounts of debates. Slrubenstein 20:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the new intro is accurate, and a great example of careful word choice. For example, by talking about "common race definitions" rather than just "race" in any form you can make strong accruate statements without getting into a POV problem over more contentious issues. --Rikurzhen 23:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I like this version much better than the previous version because it does not begin by assuming that races exist, at least as anything other than assemblages of individuals created in different ways by different people. P0M 04:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slreubenstein, the pseudo-scientific babble you have affixed to the beginning of this article is false, weasel-worded, POV rhetoric. I am going to deconstruct these two paragraphs, and unless you can provide proof that each and every statement is incontrovertibly true, I am going to replace it with statements that are.

Since the 1940s, however, most evolutionary biologists have turned away from the term "race," and, since the 1970s, most have turned away from the very concept of "subspecies"


 * Do you have proof of the term most? Are there any studies that show this?

for four reasons: there is very little data to suggest that contiguous subspecies ever become species;


 * Where is the proof? Even if your statement was true, since when is this a criterion used to establish the vailidity of a subspecies?  Please review the article on subspecies and stop trying to spread nonsense.

geographically disjunct subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be species;


 * Again, I'm awating proof.

subspecies were often recognized on the basis of only 2-5 phenotypic characters which often were just adaptations to local environments and didn't reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole


 * Can you provide examples of this?

and the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal melanin in human populations).


 * Again, proof?

''Most social scientists, drawing on such biological research, believe common race definitions in humans have little taxonomic validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and vary between cultures.''


 * This is an utterly flagrant violation of Wikipedia's policy on weasel words. Encyclopedic writing names verifiable facts, not vague and unfounded assertions.

Jalnet2 18:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jalnet thinks I use weasel words when in fact I am employing a broad, generalizing style that is typical of the introduction to any article. As I said, it is in the body where specifics and nuance belongs.

As for proof -- well, sure, look at the standard texts in evolutionary biology and you will see that they all eschew race for population: Dobzhansky, T. Genetics and the Origin of Species Huxley, J. S. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Mayr, E. Systematics and the Origin of Species, Simpson, G. G. Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Wright, S. 1931. "Evolution in Mendelian populations". Genetics 16: 97-159.

Now, you wrote that Franz Boas believed that races do not exist. Please provide your proof for that laughable statement. Slrubenstein 19:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but listing five textbooks that support that view doesn't prove your statement that "since the 1940s, however, most evolutionary biologists have turned away from the term 'race'".

I am employing a broad, generalizing style


 * Well, that's not what we should be doing. Jalnet2 19:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I'm guessing that in the intro, you are using "race" to mean the "essentialist" definition. You should make that explicit when you write what it is that certain groups are saying. --Rikurzhen 20:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I changed my contribution to reflect Rikurzhen's important point. Jalnet2 deleted what I wrote but I reverted, because what s/he wrote was out and out wrong. Everytime Jalnet tries to contribute, s/he discovers some new way to get facts wrong. Slrubenstein 21:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jalnet2, stop deleting my contribution. Learn to work with others. I am sure we can give you other opportunities to pimp Rushton in the body of the article. Slrubenstein 21:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will not revert the addition of any verified fact. What you have written is biased and in violation of Wikipedia's policy on weasel wording in that it states opinions without sourcing them.  On the other hand, my version attributes the opinions.  I will not revert attributed opinion.  But I will revert unattributed opinion.  Jalnet2 22:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recent hostilities
It seems strange to me to feel the heat level in the above exchanges. It also seems strange to me to see people arguing about what the "facts" are before it has been suffiently made clear that race is not a fact but a construction -- no, make that many competing constructions -- made on what are hopefully the same set of "facts." People do put different constructions on the facts, and therefore come to different conclusions regarding whether already seen constructions are helpful constructions to put on the facts or are unhelpful constructions to put on the facts. Some time ago a contributor visited the Spider article discussion and asked that contributors make it a model article for the provision of citations. Nothing much was heard of the matter for a while, but I think that the idea was good. I would be interested to know what each of the authorities mentioned above has to say. I would also be particularly interested to know what authorities claim that "subspecies" are in some cases actually "species." (The whole question is actually murky, for reasons I won't go into here, but I'd still be interested in having citations.)

Pending some citations, let's all cool it. P0M 01:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Jal requested I provide citations and I provided several, which he simply dismissed. Slrubenstein 16:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As peak confirms, Jal is putting factually false information into the introduction. But my point is more basic: I really do not think we should mention specific names in the introduction. An introduction should lay out the general shape of the article, and not get that specific. So I think it is inappropriate to name Jensen or Rushton -- and Lewinton and Gould in the introduction. I do realize that the earlier version was too narrow, saying "some biologists" use race as subspecies. Ruchton and Jensen are psychologists and not biologists, and I didn't mean to deny their existence (as I said, I just think adding names will overload readers as they get into the article; details go later). But I did add "psychologists" to the intro in deference to Jal, Slrubenstein


 * As far as general article guidelines go, do we have a balanced summary that a general reader could skim and understand? I am wary of Jalnet2's edits because s/he called Lewontin and Gould social scientists, which I (as a biologist) tend to regard as a fatal flaw.  Nonetheless, putting my prejudices aside, I think that there is value in simplifying the third paragraph - I don't think the introduction to the article is a good place to discuss usage over the term subspecies.
 * I am also inclined to take issue with the second paragraph (which is what makes the third paragraph necessary, I suspect). While "race" has been used in biological circles to identify a grouping below "species" (and continues to be used to describe "land races" - ie, cultivated varieties of agricultural species) this usage is not widespread.  The primary usage of "race" refers to human groups (and it is clearly defined as such in the first paragraph).  As slrubenstein said, adding names there are likely to overwhelm a reader, but the paragraph is likely to overwhelm a reader as it stands anyway.
 * Additionally, I would take issue with the implication in the second paragraph that "subspecies" and "variety" are synonymous in botany. In botanical nomenclature, subspecies lies above variety (as explained in the subspecies article).
 * ¤ I agree. I think I have fixed this part in a clear-enough way. What is actually going on, IMNO, is that some people conceive of human [races] as some botanists conceive of varieties of plants. It is significant, I think, that according to the following quotation from a university website botanists sometimes divide species into varieties without first dividing the species into subspecies, and, by so doing, indicate that the varietal differentials are insufficient to meet the strict requirements of subspecies membership. Similarly, some people who write about [race] admit that there are no extant subspecies of Homo sapiens, but assert that there are less stringently definable differentiations that still bear mention.
 * The "Taxon" grouping is recursive in that, for a given plant, a Rank, Name, Authority, etc., may be recorded for each level of the taxonomic hierarchy. Each rank is contained within the rank(s) above it, with the exception that infraspecific ranks (Subspecies, Variety and Form) are not required to be in a hierarchical relationship to one another (i.e. a Form does not have to be contained within a Variety or Subspecies, nor does a Variety need to be contained within a Subspecies) --http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~telenature/projects/filemap/taxon.html (My emphasis, P0M)
 * The introduction to the article needs work, but I don't see Jalnet2's edits as solving that problem, and they don't NPOV the article. But we do need to do this in a less confrontational manner. Guettarda 17:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you say. I think the current intro has evolved out of a concern to comply with our NPOV policy. I happen to agree with you that the use of "race" by biologists is not at all widespread. But there are some contributers here who have a different experience, and as long as their views are presented in an NPOV way (especially, admitting that there are oither valid views) I think we have to represent their views. I am glad that you have commented here and hope that you will help us improve the article, Slrubenstein 18:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Four claims
¤ Slrubenstein has modified the beginning of the article. Part of the modification makes it, IMNO, very much better. But the four blunt assertions (which have already come up for negative attention) remain. I will desist from deleting any of these assertions, some of which I think are wrong, but simply ask that citations be provided for them. I rank them below in order of my own incredulity:
 * geographically disjunct subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be species
 * ¤ Comment: Evidence is usually found insufficient to establish that two populations are actually non-clinal divisions of the same species. When is there ever evidence to suggest that two supposed subspecies are actually incapable of interbreeding or otherwise are demonstrably not even members of the same species?


 * there is very little data to suggest that contiguous subspecies ever become species
 * ¤ Comment: What is your point here? I can make 4 or 5 wild guesses, but will throttle myself and await the true answer.


 * subspecies were often recognized on the basis of only 2-5 phenotypic characters which often were just adaptations to local environments and didn't reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole
 * ¤ Comment: This part sounds reasonable, but in context with points 1 and 2 I would still like citations. If these points are relevant to what people think of as [races] then we need something very firmly grounded, not just one man's opinion. P0M 20:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal melanin in human populations).
 * This might be better put as: Phenotypic and genotypic classifications do not always correspond precisely. --Rikurzhen 05:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to rephrasing it as you suggest. Slrubenstein 22:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see what Slrubenstein was trying to communicate. I think his claim is stronger than what you provide, and that his claim is correct. Unfortunately, it is muddy in itself and given in the context of even muddier assertions which make me wary of trying to fix anything until I see what he has been trying to say. P0M 05:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think this has to be modified. It has to be more specific or more general (my suggestion). As it stands, it does not seem to precisely reflect an informed opinion. The most problematic part is the phrase "is at odds with". It isn't precise enough to mean anything. Consider the example of skin color versus ancestry -- the relationship is measured as a correlation -- and the correlation is positive and "moderate" in the studies I've seen (e.g. ). --Rikurzhen 19:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * ¤ Let's see his citations and work from there. P0M 20:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The arguments I provided came out of a conversation I had with a professor of biology at my school (specifically, he has a PhD. from the University of Michigan and is an Associate Professor of Systematic Bioloby and Herpatology; his current research involves a study of the geographic molecular variation of two widespread species, the Eastern Spadefooted Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki and the Racer (a snake) Coluber constrictor in an attempt to unravel their evolutionary history in relationship to glaciational cycles, vegetation and soils. Given this, I admit that I assumed that his comments were accurate, in good faith.  If you like I can ask him for specific sources.  But let's be clear about our NPOV policy: it does not matter whether any of these four claims about biology are right or wrong.  This is because the paragraph in question is about biologists, not biology.  The paragraph makes the claim that there are evolutionary biologists who have abandoned the notion of race and even subspecies for certain reasons. The only question here is, are these really their reasons, or are these not their reasons? It is certainly true that there are evooutionary biologists who reject race and are seriously skeptical of subspecies as useful concepts. The task in this article is to make this fact clear, and also explain why they believe this. The article also makes clear that there are biologists who still use the concept race. I have no doubt at all that they will reject the reasons other biologists have for renouncing race and avoiding subspecies. But the task of this article is not to resolve their debate, and it is not the role of any editor to judge reasons as good or bad. Let us say -- hypothetically -- that all of us reject the reasoning I included in the article. That doesn't matter. What matters is there are biologists who believe this, and we have to include their view in the article. Slrubenstein 18:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ¤ I could get prolix again and dispute point by point. Check with your professor of biology. I think you misheard on point 1. If I'm wrong it should be easy to come up with good citations. As for saying that "it does not matter whether any of these four claims about biology are right or wrong. This is because the paragraph in question is about biologists, not biology." I am astounded. Would you quote the one historian with a Ph.D. who claims that there was no massacre in Cambodia directed by Pol Pot?  Such an allegation might be true. (I wasn't there.) But I am sure that such a claim is not the consensus of people who have studied recent Cambodian history, and I have personally interviewed (in an informal way) one witness who claimed to have lost family members. If one wanted to be absolutely NPOV one might include statements on Cambodian massacre from Pol Pot's pet historian, and statements on [racial] characteristics from some grand wizard. But you wouldn't lead with those positions knowing that the vast majority of people who have devoted their lives to getting the truth do not share those positions. P0M 20:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are being illogical, by mixing up two distinct points. The first point is that we should have sources, and I agree with this. You think I misunderstood my source, or you are claiming my source is wrong, or if he is right, he can provide sources. Well, I conceded that point already. But the point that we should have sources is very different from the point that the paragraph in question is about biology, not biologists. You are simply wrong. It is about biologists, not biology. I think this mistake because at least on the evidence of these talk pages you are used to developing your own ideas (often in the form of speculation, or hypothetical or logical arguments) rather than consulting sources (even here, you bring in five sentences on Cambodia and Pol Pot which have nothing to do with this article -- nor is it relevant to how we edit this article. The only things that ae relevant are Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, no original research, verifiability, etc.). But to put such material into the article is a clear violation of our "No original research" rule. Wikipedia is simply not a place to put your ideas or my ideas -- it is not the place to put any arguments or views held by editors. It is the place to put the views of experts concerning the subject of the article. Those are the only views allowed. The introduction is stating that there are at least three views held by people (NOT including POM or any of POM's friends, or by Slrubenstein or any of his buddies, but held by people who regularly research and write about race in public arenas). In presenting one of those views, I included reasons why people who hold that view hold that view. As far as the process of editing this article whether they are right or wrong is not important and it most certainly is not my place or yours to judge whether they are right or wrong. The only thing we as editors can judge is whether this view is fringe or not (I am certain it is not a fringe view) and whether the reasons I provided are the reasons they say they have for holding their views.  If you try to judge thevalidity of their claims yourself, you are violating both our NPOV policy and our No original research policy. Slrubenstein 22:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other changes I would suggest: This would make the sentence inaccurate. The word "wholesale" means they reject every component and form of this view. This is true. The word "universal" means everyone shares this view. This is patently false. Slrubenstein 22:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "a wholesale rejection of essentialist understandings of race" --> a near universal rejection of the "essentialist" understandings of race

I think this would make the sentence innacurate. I thought the skepticism of these two views of race occured at the same time (roughly) as the rejection of essentialist concepts of race. If you only "suspect" I would ask you to hold off until you have more evidence. It is true you cite a source from the 1970s but the population view of race, for example, emerged much earlier. I believe biologists had taxonomic and lineage understandings of race before the sources you cite. I suspect that the sources are summing trends in biology from preceeding years. It is even possible that it was not until 1969 and 1979 that these specific definitions were put forward. But that doesn't mean that the basic idea was not circulating for some time. But if you are sure that it occured later, go ahead. Slrubenstein 22:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "but also skepticism about taxonomic and lineage understandings of race" --> and later skepticism about "taxonomic" and "population" understandings of race


 * comment: the "lineage" concept seems to have only emerged in the late 1990s, and so skepticism about it is the normal kind for a new idea that doesn't have enough data to convince people one way or another; i'm just guessing here, I expect people rejected the "essentialist" before anyone came up with the definitions that emerged in the 70s --Rikurzhen 20:47, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you are right about this. Slrubenstein 22:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¤ Flaming at me is not going to fix the problems with what you have written. Your text states:
 * This skepticism was motivated by four factors: (1) there is very little data to suggest that contiguous subspecies ever become species; (2) geographically disjunct subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be species; (3) subspecies were often recognized on the basis of only 2-5 phenotypic characters which often were just adaptations to local environments and didn't reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole; (4) and the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal melanin in human populations).

Statement (1) is an irrelevancy. It may or may not be true. Without citations, it's impossible to say. Statement (2) is a bold assertion behind which there is no proof. Where are your citations? Statements (3) and (4) seem reasonable to me, but I still would like citations. P0M 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we compress paragraphs 2-4 of the intro into a couple sentences and append them to the end of paragraph 1. Because the validity question now has its own article, we can leave those details out of the main article intro. Here's my suggestion for a new intro. Edit away. --Rikurzhen 23:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, genetics, and national origin. Racial groupings are often controversial due to political and sociological implications. Since the 1940s, many evolutionary biologists have made a wholesale rejection of the "essentialist" understandings of the term "race." Since the 1970s, there has been increased skepticism about "taxonomic" and "population" understandings of race. Since the 1990s, new information from human genomics has focused the discussion of race on the ancestry or evolutionary "lineage" definitions of race.


 * ¤ Can we change "essentialist" somehow? The average well-informed reader is not going to understand this word as it is intended in this context. P0M 23:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * typological? --Rikurzhen 23:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I used "essentialism" because it was in Rikhurzhen's chart. Also, I think it is a good word for this reason: "essentialist" is the word most commonly used, at least in the United States. If people (at least in the US) do not understand the word, it is (in my experience) because they do not understand the concept. The only thing to do is either explain in in one sentence, and provide a link to the Essentialism article. Slrubenstein 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for "flaming" POM I am not sure what he means. But I do have to respond to his being "astounded" by my desire to comply with Wikipedia policy. He either (1) misunderstands me, or (2) misunderstands Wikipedia policy. If we are going to claim that there are biologists who reject race and are skeptical of subspecies, we must explain why they do/are. I provided four reasons. I do not object to Rikurzhen's compression of the paragraph, but at some point in the body we have to explain why biologists and other evolutionary scientists take this position. I agree with POM that citations are good. I only pointed out that any citations would provide examples of biologists claim these things -- not examples that prove that the claims are correct. This seems obvious to me, but the way POM replied to me seemed to be a nonsequitor. I wrote ""it does not matter whether any of these four claims about biology are right or wrong. This is because the paragraph in question is about biologists, not biology." and POM was "astounded." I still do not understand why.  An example about Cambodia just doesn't explain to me why this statement about biologists is "astounding." Slrubenstein 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ¤ I am dismayed by your use of an irrelevancy, by your lack of evidence (particularly for points 1 and 2), and your attitude toward your lack of evidence. If you have the citations to ground your claims, particularly in points 1 and 2, please supply them. P0M 01:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the opening paragraph, that I think are very important. First, it is not just racial groupings, but the idea of race itself, that is controversial. Second, I change "many" to "most" evolutionary biologists, which I think is accurate given the way Rikhurzhen narrowed the prediate. FInally I reinserted the social science sentence -- to exclude it would be suggest either that race is not an important object of study in social sciences, or that social sciences are not as important as biology. Either, of course, would be wrong. Slrubenstein 00:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks good, but I get the feeling that social science has something more to say than about taxonomic validity. I don't know what it is, but I originally left it out for that reason. It'll be up to someone else to figure out if that is correct. --Rikurzhen 00:48, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to help, but here's a quotation from. A paper worth reading. --Rikurzhen 01:38, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

"In the 1950s many zoological taxonomists became dissatisfied with the subspecies as a way to understand variation10, 12, 13. Criticisms included (i) the nonconcordance of traits, which made it possible to produce different classifications using the same individuals; (ii) the existence of polytopic populations, which are the product of parallel evolution; (iii) the existence of true breeding populations (demes) within previously delimited subspecies; and (iv) the arbitrariness of criteria used to recognized subspecies10. In addition, some traits were found to be clinally distributed, making the creation of divisions arbitrary."

I continue to be confused by POM (although he accused me of flaming him, he seems to be flaiming me). "I am dismayed by your use of an irrelevancy," Huh? What could be more relevant, than the reasons why some scientists reject the notion of subspecies? This is entirely and highly relevant. "by your lack of evidence (particularly for points 1 and 2)," Well, I told you who gave me the information, and when you asked for more sources I said I will check and get them. Isn't this an example of reasonable discussion? Why must you insult me? "and your attitude toward your lack of evidence." My attitude towards my lack of evidence is simple, and clearly stated: I will ask my source for published citations. I have in fact done so, although he has not yet gotten back to me. I must say, I am astounded by your utter lack of patience and good faith. I agreed that citations are important, I said I would ask for them, I have asked for them. What is wrong with this "attitude?"