Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 July 4

= July 4 =

Compared to other organisms, why only one human breed exist right now?
Statement: "Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify."

From the above statement, I can't call Race as breed, for example: German Shepherd, Rottweiler,  Bull Dog, Pit Bull etc are existing dog breeds.

Compared to other organisms, why only one human breed exist right now? Rizosome (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you tried reading the Breed article? It clearly explains that the word breed has no single, scientific definition, but is actually a "term of art". However, broadly speaking breed, like cultivar, generally refers to a result of selective breeding, and since humans aren't selectively bred (or farmed) the word isn't really appropriate. People don't generally like the word race either, but when discussing genetic and physical differences between different populations it's fine to refer to them as "racial characteristics". nagualdesign 03:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Many languages use the same word for dog breeds as for unscientific racial classifications of humans. For example, German uses Rasse for both. English has two separate words, each with several generally somewhat vague meanings. In English, the term breed is not applied to humans for classification (except figuratively, as in, "bassoon players are a rare breed"). If Earth is in some future colonized by aliens, they may set up selective breeding programs to get differentiated human breeds comparable to the engineered classes of Brave New World. One of the senses of race is that of a subspecies, and one can ask why the species Homo sapiens has not split into subspecies. Such a split can only be expected if there are separated groups, not having contact for a very long time. In some science fiction stories set in the future this has indeed happened, like the Eloi and Morlocks of The Time Machine. --Lambiam 09:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A more elaborate and intentional version is in Jack Vance's short novel The Dragon Masters. —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that "race" is occasionally used in reference to other species, specifically in the term "landrace". Nyttend backup (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There clearly are noticeable and statistically established genetic differences between human populations native to different areas of the world, even though this variation is small compared with the genetic variation within each population, and certainly not enough to limit interbreeding. It is a matter of semantics what term you apply to describe these different populations, although it is fair to say that if it were another animal species biologists might well have applied the terms subspecies or race for such geographically separated populations differing consistently in appearance. There were much greater genetic differences between modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, although also hybridisation between them. Sometimes these are called different subspecies, sometimes different species. Anyway, part of the answer to your question would involve examining why Neanderthals and Denisovans have gone extinct. Jmchutchinson (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "it is fair to say that if it were another animal species biologists might well have applied the terms subspecies or race for such geographically separated populations differing consistently in appearance."
 * If you cannot be bothered to provide the OP with WP:reliable sources in answer to their query (you know, the only legitimate function you are meant to be providing on the reference desk ), please at least do not attempt to fill the gap with your own random speculation based on a thimbles-full of actual scientific understanding. Putting aside for a moment that the "information" you are providing here is nothing more than parroted claptrap of the sort that eugenicists and other empirically naive racists have advanced since the 19th century, it's also just plainly, overwhelmingly debunked by consensus science, which has in fact investigated the matter at length with modern methods for many decades. No taxonomist and certainly no phylogeneticist with any degree of standing in the scientific community would even begin to advance the notion that the trivial differences in the genomic or phenotypical variances of modern Homo sapiens populations constitutes a "subspecies", let alone a large enough number to give such a "theory" anything even remotely approaching empirical validity.


 * And let me just head off any rejoinder that this observation "begs the question", because you were talking about a pet theory that this uniformity of scholarly opinion reflects "political correctness", or some other such social pressure that forces researchers to dogmatically embrace a different standard for phylogeny with our own species than we apply to others, in order totip-toe around race relations (which seems pretty clearly to be the implication of your comment): no, absolutely not. The uniformity of opinion is the result of exhaustive examination of this question, done with intellectual honesty, empirical rigor, and a faithful application of established and celebrated methodologies: facts you would have become aware of if you had used this space for its intended purpose and tried to find some relevant sources for the OP, rather than shooting from the hip based on your own lack of relevant expertise.  Please, please think twice before answering any question in this space (especially questions that have the potential for a life-long impact on how a person coming here for information might view their fellow humans in fundamental respects) in which you are doing anything more than providing sources and maybe a little bit of extra text to contextualize them.  This is WP:NOTAFORUM for you to make your best guess, stitch together scraps of your own knowledge to arrive at novel conclusions, or to speculate about alternative world realities based on your perception of the biases undergirding consensus science.


 * , whatever you hear, here or elsewhere, there is one extant human species (Homo sapiens), and one extant subspecies of the clade, Homo sapiens sapiens, sometimes known idiomatically as "anatomically modern humans". If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee: it is an exhaustive (but highly accessible to non-experts) look at exactly the area you are trying to probe with your recent questions here (the nature and place of humanity in relation to its closest taxonomic "relatives", living and dead, and the evolutionary path we took to our ecological niche over recent epochs, and the consequences for other hominids and our own genetic homogeneity).  It is a little bit dated at this point, lacking some recent genetic and paleontological findings, but it is written specifically as a popular science primer to the subject, and I trust it will give you an effective leg-up in grappling with these topics.  By contrast, I would not recommend relying too much on insights provided by random parties online, even here: we have many well-educated contributors here with more than passing knowledge in many technical fields, but my observation has been that when it comes to genetics and physiology, we have a dearth of qualified experts and a wealth of people willing to shoot off about pet theories, so take anything you hear here with a grain of salt.


 * In fact, with regard to a couple of your other posts here over the last week, I noticed more than a bit of confused information in the responses, which I would have liked to have corrected, had I been in a position to. But in a happy coincidence, at least one of these topics (the effect of melanin and phenotypical variations among human populations) is, as I recall, treated in The Third Chimapnzee, so I will trust in that much more eminent and articulate expert to help straighten the facts out for you.  You seem to be going through a phase (which many who prefer a naturalist explanation of the world go through) where you are trying to reconcile the pressures of natural selection and how they normally play out with some interesting idiosyncracies of the human species.  This is a moment that often separates people into two categories afterwards--those who can understand the nuances of human nature of physiology within legitimate naturalistic paradigms, and those who adopt simpler but less accurate racist frameworks--based on their initial motives, their willingness to put in the work, and (perhaps above all) the diet of information they are lucky enough to stumble upon.  Needless to say, with that last one, the internet is an extremely mixed bag.  Go forward with caution and skepticism, and good luck. Snow let's rap 21:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) From your tone, I think you must have jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that "subspecies" may fairly be applied to extant human populations. I was careful NOT to say that, and I know of no mainstream biologist or anthropologist today who would do so.
 * 2) I nevertheless stand by the statement that you highlighted, that taxonomists routinely designate subspecies of other species on the basis of geographical differences in external appearance that are no greater than those we observe between populations of humans. Often the differences between named subspecies seem trivial to the non-specialist! Taxonomists are entitled to do so because there is no rigorous definition of subspecies (taxonomists do not even all insist that the variation is geographical). I often question whether the naming of subspecies on the basis of minor differences is useful, but this is common practice, partly because it is indeed a useful way to document geographical variation, partly because taxonomists like to name things, and nowadays also sometimes it is done to gain greater protection for a threatened population. For what it's worth, I am saying this as a professional taxonomist and geneticist myself and the editor of an established taxonomic journal.
 * 3) My point in making this comment was to say that the words "race" and "subspecies" are poorly defined labels to describe levels of genetic variation. Scientists do not use the same criteria for defining a subspecies within the Hominidae as they use in many other organisms, such as moths or gulls for instance. That is an important component in answering the original question.
 * 4) Besides these semantic matters, I am not sure whether we disagree about the biological facts. I think it is indisputable that there are genetic differences between geographic populations of modern humans. At least in the case of formerly long-isolated populations, like those in Australia, a suite of genetic differences covary with each other. But I emphasised that most genetic variation is within populations, not between. Do you disagree with any of that? Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Besides these semantic matters, I am not sure whether we disagree about the biological facts."
 * I don't doubt that you are correct in this assumption up to a point, but the nexus of disagreement happens to be on a very non-trivial distinction, and I continue to have concerns about how you are contextualizing the scientific consensus, the appropriateness of that speculation in a project space per WP:OR, and the message the OP is likely to take from that speculation.
 * "I think you must have jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that "subspecies" may fairly be applied to extant human populations. I was careful NOT to say that, and I know of no mainstream biologist or anthropologist today who would do so. . . . I nevertheless stand by the statement that you highlighted, that taxonomists routinely designate subspecies of other species on the basis of geographical differences in external appearance that are no greater than those we observe between populations of humans.
 * Yes, I do understand the distinction you were trying to make, but, bluntly, you are splitting the hair thinner than our policies allow. And for that matter, thinner than I think is responsible for a researcher in a context where they are trying to communicate scientific consensus rather than their own perspective on an issue--which you should not be doing on this project in any event, even (or perhaps especially) on the RefDesks. What those comments say in essence is "I acknowledge that the consensus of the expert opinions in this area are that there are non subspecies in anatomically modern human...however, I also feel that if those experts aren't applying the relevant methodologies in a fashion consistent how they are applied to other species, so that conclusion is dubious."  Now the first part you are of course well in the clear to share with the OP.  But the second part you are just not entitled to slip in there.  With due respect to the fact that you are apparently well-educated in taxonomy, that doesn't give you a free pass on our ban on presenting original research on this project; that observation is simply not consistent with the consensus of reliable sources when it comes to the question of whether or not standard application of taxonomic and phylogenetic techniques renders into an observable existence of subspecies within Homo sapiens.


 * As with any article on this project, before you share information in this space, you need to ask yourself whether you can provide sources which support that claim. And, though you didn't provide any in this instance, even if you could find some references supporting those views, you should then ask yourself the second question of whether these sources, when put against the balance of consensus in the field, constitute enough WP:WEIGHT to warrant even a carefully worded corollary to the main statement.  With respect, in this instance you have a pet theory which does not jibe with the consensus of experts in hominid taxonomy and phylogenetics, which consensus is said to be the result of the appropriate and scientifically rigorous application of standard methodologies, not mere anthropocentric bias, as you seem, in your expert opinion, to believe.  I'm going to guess from your outside-looking-in skepticism of that consensus that your expertise is not in hominid species, but even if it was, it wouldn't matter here: you are not supposed to be sharing those opinions here unless through the vehicle of reliable sources--and even then, carefully within the framework of WP:WEIGHT.  And when you ignore those rules, you are not sharing encyclopedic information (as it is defined by this project's policies) with the OP and others reading your comments, but rather your own speculation/original research, which is not what this space is for.


 * And yes, I do appreciate that what you have done in sharing your opinion is not unlike what happens on the RefDesks very frequently these days: speculation rather references has become the norm, rather than the exception here. But it's troubling normalization here doesn't make right under our policies--nor, bluntly does it make it intellectually honest or scientifically responsible.


 * "My point in making this comment was to say that the words "race" and "subspecies" are poorly defined labels to describe levels of genetic variation."
 * Hey, no doubt. And in numerous other contexts--an actual forum somewhere else online where we are not beholden to the same rules we are here; a conference; a walk across a campus; a dinner party--I'd undoubtedly love to have this conversation with you, and I think we would agree much, much more than we disagree.  But that's not the context here. Here, we are meant to be summarizing what reliable sources say on the matter, not sharing our idiosyncratic, personal views with the world at large.  There are many other forums for us to do that on--Wikipedia, including it's reference desk, has a more narrow lens.
 * "Scientists do not use the same criteria for defining a subspecies within the Hominidae as they use in many other organisms, such as moths or gulls for instance.
 * Well, that is a controversial take, and a complicated matter open to discussion amongst experts. But it is not the consensus of reliable sources, so, again (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record), not acceptable grist for the mill here.
 * "I think it is indisputable that there are genetic differences between geographic populations of modern humans. At least in the case of formerly long-isolated populations, like those in Australia, a suite of genetic differences covary with each other. But I emphasised that most genetic variation is within populations, not between. Do you disagree with any of that?"
 * No, I do not. The study of those differences is in fact one of the most robust fields in contemporary genetics and genomics. But "[significant] genetic differences" ≠ "subspecies".  And the scientific consensus in this matter is clear: the differences in human genetic variation, whether related to easily observable phenotypical features or not, do not constitute evidence (or anything even remotely close to acceptable evidence) to support (or even suggest) the existence of extant subspecies in Homo sapiens. Period, end of story. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 01:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Snow Rise, you again misrepresent me in saying that I think that extant human populations should be classified as subspecies: it should be clear from my comments that I think ape taxonomists have got it right, and that some other taxonomists are often too liberal in designating subspecies. You are also mistaken to say that it is controversial that the subspecies concept is used differently in different taxa: here's a supporting review (indeed we are both guilty of not citing relevant literature). See here for another nice review of the current usage of subspecies in zoology (focussing on butterflies). Jmchutchinson (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course that's the case: physiologically, genetically, and morphologically, an ape is a very different organism from, say, a butterfly. So of course, by necessity different metrics will be used for taxonomic differentiation, and no universal standard can be applied with mathematical precision to "equitably" form distinctions across disparate clades in wildly different branches of the tree of life.  It is for exactly the reason of that obvious truism that I don't think there is any way for the OP to interpret your comment other than to suggest that the application you referenced in the case of Homo Sapiens is unbalanced or biased in some, since you used a speculative "if": by your own distinction immediately above, this can't refer to appraisal of common structures, because we are comparing apples and oranges. So what else would you be saying "it is fair to say that if it were another animal species biologists might well have applied the terms subspecies or race for such geographically separated populations differing consistently in appearance."  I take you at face value when you say that you support the over-arching consensus view of the lack of extant subspecies in our species, but I am having a hard time squaring that stance with the statement I found problematic--and if it's difficult for me, consider how potentially misdirecting (however unintentionally) it might be for the OP, who is coming at this topic without particularly robust technical knowledge of the relevant fields.


 * Beyond that, I'm not sure we are going to have a meeting of the minds on this. I've observed why I think the statement is problematic, misleading, and not consistent with the best way to present information here (or for that matter with the type of information we are meant to provide here), so you'll have to decide for yourself whether there is something to that note of caution that is worth considering for any potential similar situations here in the future. I would submit to you that your wording was, at a minimum, inartful and in a way that could dovetail with certain longstanding trains of eugenicist thought regarding "human subspecies" which the OP might be exposed to as they explore this topic in online spaces. Having made that point at length, I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not the statement might, in retrospect and in context, be the kind of thing you'd want to phrase differently in the future.  In any event, I can tell you have only good intentions here for the communication of the science. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 06:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in but that's two quite extended rants in a row, and as far as I can see Jmchutchinson hasn't made a single ill-founded statement, let alone bent or broken any rules. I think you're judging him very harshly based on a misreading of his original post. Having clarified what he meant, re-reading his OP should have allayed your fears. Also, ending your comment with "Period, end of story." is incredibly dismissive IMHO. Play nicely. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#BBA">design</b></b> 20:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything even remotely "un-nice"/incivil in my comments. I had a significant concern about the WP:Verifiability of a statement and I addressed it, both to clarify an important distinction that I think the OP needs to be aware of and to inform Jmchutchinson why I think they'd be advised to watch wording of that nature in this context (meaning both the subject matter and the particular format and expectations of this project).  But nothing in any of it was meant to be personal or discourteous--a distinction which I believe the other contributor understands, from the measured tone of their responses (which, all other editorial and empirical disagreements not withstanding, I do appreciate).  As for the policies of this project which I felt gave me no choice but to make those observations, I have detailed them at length above and see no point to belaboring them again and growing this digression further.


 * That said, I will observe that I think if this space doesn't rediscover its primary purpose in putting forth references, with a minimum of additional editorializing and speculation in the connective tissue that contextualizes those sources, it won't last forever: there have already been multiple centralized policy space discussions attempting to shut it down over the last couple of years. Having been a contributor here for a decade and believing in the unique utility of this space (at least in theory) for legitimate encyclopedic functions, I have been a vociferous voice arguing against that outcome and urging for reform instead.  But honestly, even I begin to wonder when I might have to flip my !vote on the question of whether the ref desks have exhausted all community patience with realigning with important project policies and priorities.  Take that "rant" for what you will... <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 06:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please try to re-read Jmchutchinson's original post with fresh eyes. As for "I don't see anything even remotely "un-nice"/incivil in my comments.", please re-read your reply to his original post, which includes a multitude of disparaging remarks. I can quote them if you can't see them, but I shouldn't really have to. Respectfully, <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#BBA">design</b></b> 17:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think this line of discussion is going to accomplish. Clearly I have already engaged at length with the wording of Jmchutchinson's original post, so just repeatedly asserting your belief that the opposite must be true strikes me as weak and vague argumentation, and arguably assuming bad faith. Beyond that, clearly both the other volunteer and I have each said our peace on the matter, and if I wouldn't describe the discourse that passed between us as particularly cheery, neither would I say that it was in any way caustic.  Clearly you think my approach could have been softer in tone, but I'm sorry, this project does have principles governing the acceptability of content--which do in fact operate on this page, whatever it's unique role in our project ecosystem--and sometimes discussing possible violations of those policies requires a degree of bluntness or even sharpness, particularly with regard to certain contentious content areas, the existence of human "subspecies" most assuredly included.


 * But stridency (or even severity) are not the same thing as incivility, and whether you believe it or not, I go out of my way to try to avoid insult and to try to be open-minded when discussing such matters. In this instance, I am afraid I just cannot bridge the gap between my perspective and Jmchutchinson's on whether or not the statement in question is in fact problematic as an editorial matter, but our discussion has lead me to the conclusion that his intentions behind it were not meant to be counter-factual to the scientific consensus--which is why I made sure to take the time to point as much out. But I'm afraid that's really the best I can do here, insofar as I continue to feel the statement was problematic, whatever additional perceptions of Jmchutchinson I may have as a result of the discussion, which are overwhelmingly positive, on the whole.  I'm sorry, but I'm just not here to "play", nicely or otherwise--this is serious business, with potential to significantly shape at least one person's perception of what race actually means as a naturalistic phenomena, which is why we have the policies that we do and apply them particularly strictly in this area.  I'm not going to apologize for calling this issue out: it was the right call and I stand by it.  I will just have to hope that JMC, as both a scientist and an experienced contributor, understands these motivations even if he disagrees with my read that the most likely and intuitive interpretation of the statement in question would seem to suggest that the repudiation of extant human subspecies may in fact just be a failure of recognition of something that is probably there--an implication I now know was not intended but which I continue to feel is pregnant in the wording he initially chose. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Other putative species would fall well into the best definition of "race" we have to work with, like Homo neanderthalensis and homo denisova, as well as homo floriensis. I've also previously pointed out that the facts that there is no such thing as magic and all these races have died off proves that the genre of real life is undoubtedly post-apocalyptic fantasy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What does this mean, if anything? What is "the best definition of 'race' we have to work with"?? The best taxonomic treatment of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova within the genus Homo is unclear, and does not become any clearer by using terms that have no clear definition. --Lambiam 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See Race (biology). It's usually considered close to, if not synonymous with subspecies. Note that the common definition of species includes the stipulation that different species cannot interbreed, whereas modern humans are known to have interbred with neanderthals and denisovians. So while neanderthals and denisovians are frequently called different species from modern humans, they do not actually meet the common criteria for being different species, making them subspecies. Which can be referred to as races. It's less clear whether there was any interbreeding with floriensis, but as they're frequently referred to as "hobbits", I couldn't very well leave them out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)