Race just another Social construct ?

[George-ananda]

t... genetics between ethnic groups is unimportant because there isn't any real variation there.

The position you present has been called Lewontin's Fallacy: (from Wikipedia)

geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" (2003) argued that the conclusion that racial groups can not be genetically distinguished from each other is incorrect. Edwards argued that when multiple allelles are taken into account genetic differences do tend to cluster in geographic patterns roughly corresponding to the groups commonly defined as races. This is because most of the information that distinguishes populations from each other is hidden in the correlation structure of allele frequencies, making it possible to highly reliably classify individuals using the mathematical techniques described above. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously. Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]

Let me quote the scientist Richard Dawkins on the question:

"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

I'm of course not in a position to referee debates between scientists. That's why I've been saying ethnic genetic variation is so involved that the best tool we have for answering our question is observation with intelligent analysis.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

It seems, before Darwin, no one explored America, and Africa, and Asia. Darwin, perhaps made people see people as different. The people who saw Africa, and America, were scientists who wanted to see the new world. They believed, they were helping their nation, through trade, and with interacting with the new world, in the way they did.

 

[painted wolf]

The position you present has been called Lewontin's Fallacy: (from Wikipedia)

geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" (2003) argued that the conclusion that racial groups can not be genetically distinguished from each other is incorrect. Edwards argued that when multiple allelles are taken into account genetic differences do tend to cluster in geographic patterns roughly corresponding to the groups commonly defined as races. This is because most of the information that distinguishes populations from each other is hidden in the correlation structure of allele frequencies, making it possible to highly reliably classify individuals using the mathematical techniques described above. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously. Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]

Let me quote the scientist Richard Dawkins on the question:

"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

I'm of course not in a position to referee debates between scientists. That's why I've been saying ethnic genetic variation is so involved that the best tool we have for answering our question is observation with intelligent analysis.

First I never said that you can't use genetics for human taxonomy... that is what haplogroups are.

And second you should have kept reading... you missed these bits:

Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosopher Jonathan Kaplan have argued that while Edwards argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.[11]

In the 2007 paper Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations[18], Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.[18] Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."[18]

*emphasis mine


So, no... I'm not engaging in Lewontin's Fallacy. But it was a nice try.


wa:do


Ps... I'm sorry for your loss. While I don't follow sports my New York and Jersey friends/family made sure I knew about the Giants victory.

 

[George-ananda]

And second you should have kept reading... you missed these bits:

On the first quote: Nothing in this quote disagrees with what I'm arguing. Lets stop and really look at what's being said: " because the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. ".

Please acknowledge the first half of that statement that supports my position 'the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average'. Remember my bell curve argument with different center points leading to over and under representation at both ends?

The second half of the statement: "does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. ". This is about biological divisions; a subject I never discussed here.

Now on to your second quote: Again, not a thing here contradicts what I've been saying. Let's look at the concluding sentence that you highlighted: "Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes".

I concur, Caution must be exercised. As I keep saying observation requires intelligent analysis (i.e. caution). You're saying that any of my observed differences in traits and abilitites must be my own personal bias because, in your words, "genetics between ethnic groups is unimportant because there isn't any real variation there". I respectfully feel common sense and the experts are on my side.

Ps... I'm sorry for your loss. While I don't follow sports my New York and Jersey friends/family made sure I knew about the Giants victory.

I appreciate the sympathy. Being a sports fan, I'm on suicide-watch today. But don't think I'll let you out of this debate that easily.......Hmmm..I wonder if the fact that you don't follow sports and I do effected our starting positions in this debate?????

 

[Storm]

I plan on writing two or three scientific papers on that very topic tomorrow.

How many of your "scientific papers" have actually been published for peer review? I mean, if you write two or three a day...

Is there a reason this was ignored?

 

[George-ananda]

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Peer reviews are easy....I have rubber stamps in my drawer with all their names on them.

 

[Storm]

Peer reviews are easy....I have rubber stamps in my drawer with all their names on them.

Almost as easy as writing an essay about how the moon is made of green cheese and pretending it's a "scientific paper."

 

[George-ananda]

Almost as easy as writing an essay about how the moon is made of green cheese and pretending it's a "scientific paper."

Are you serious or really criticizing? There's no inflection in your voice. I don't write scientific papers as you can guess.

I find humour and light-heartedness in debates classier than the savage insulting ones I see on RF!!!

 

[Storm]

Are you serious or really criticizing? There's no inflection in your voice. I don't write scientific papers as you can guess.

I find humour and light-heartedness in debates classier than the savage insulting ones I see on RF!!!

Yeah, I'm really criticizing. When you claim credentials you obviously don't have, that's not being "light-hearted" so much as dishonest. I mean it would be one thing if you threw in a smiley or said "wink wink, nudge nudge" or something, but you didn't.

 

[George-ananda]

Yeah, I'm really criticizing. When you claim credentials you obviously don't have, that's not being "light-hearted" so much as dishonest. I mean it would be one thing if you threw in a smiley or said "wink wink, nudge nudge" or something, but you didn't.

I thought it was obvious when I was being serious and when I was trying to be funny. I thought the silliness of my claim would imply I couldn't be serious to an average reader.

I use a text editor and can't put in symbols that easily but I can and will do it in the future.

My apologies.

 

[Storm]

I thought it was obvious when I was being serious and when I was trying to be funny. I thought the silliness of my claim would imply I couldn't be serious to an average reader.

I use a text editor and can't put in symbols that easily but I can and will do it in the future.

My apologies.

Cool, then. Misunderstandings happen. But a bit of friendly advice? Bear Poe's Law in mind. Just because you meant it to be funny doesn't mean there aren't idiots out there who wouldn't say the same thing because they think it makes them look smarter. Online, it's pretty hard to tell one from the other.

 

[painted wolf]

On the first quote: Nothing in this quote disagrees with what I'm arguing. Lets stop and really look at what's being said: " because the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. ".

Please acknowledge the first half of that statement that supports my position 'the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average'. Remember my bell curve argument with different center points leading to over and under representation at both ends?

The second half of the statement: "does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. ". This is about biological divisions; a subject I never discussed here.

Race is absolutely a biological division and it is absolutely something you have talked about. That is the subject of the whole thread. :sarcastic

Now on to your second quote: Again, not a thing here contradicts what I've been saying. Let's look at the concluding sentence that you highlighted: "Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes".

I concur, Caution must be exercised. As I keep saying observation requires intelligent analysis (i.e. caution). You're saying that any of my observed differences in traits and abilitites must be my own personal bias because, in your words, "genetics between ethnic groups is unimportant because there isn't any real variation there". I respectfully feel common sense and the experts are on my side.

Except once again you are ignoring the meat of the argument and cherry picking what you feel supports you. Read the rest of what I highlighted.

I appreciate the sympathy. Being a sports fan, I'm on suicide-watch today. But don't think I'll let you out of this debate that easily.......Hmmm..I wonder if the fact that you don't follow sports and I do effected our starting positions in this debate?????

Quite possibly... Just like the fact that I've studied genetics has had an effect.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Race is absolutely a biological division and it is absolutely something you have talked about. That is the subject of the whole thread. :sarcastic

I have used the term ethnic differences; like eskimos, australian aboriginees, etc...Don't get what point you were trying to make with this comment that would impact my argument.

Except once again you are ignoring the meat of the argument and cherry picking what you feel supports you. Read the rest of what I highlighted.

I did read the whole highlighted part and unhighlighted part and it's good information but, as I said, I don't see where anything said impacts the argument I'm making...don't facepalm without supporting it.

Quite possibly... Just like the fact that I've studied genetics has had an effect.

wa:do

But why do people who study genetics have different opinions? As stated in my earlier post from the Wikipedia article: "Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence of biological difference in order to argue for social equality." I sympathize with the goal but nature is not always fair.

 

[painted wolf]

I have used the term ethnic differences; like eskimos, australian aboriginees, etc...Don't get what point you were trying to make with this comment that would impact my argument.

So you are reducing the amount of genetic variation even more then?

How are Inuit genetically significantly different from Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats?

I did read the whole highlighted part and unhighlighted part and it's good information but, as I said, I don't see where anything said impacts the argument I'm making...don't facepalm without supporting it.

Yes, it does. It says that the kind of classification that you are trying to impose is not supportable.

But why do people who study genetics have different opinions? As stated in my earlier post from the Wikipedia article: "Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence of biological difference in order to argue for social equality." I sympathize with the goal but nature is not always fair.

Because even good scientists are still humans with opinions.

The fact remains that with addition of the human genome project and the human migration studies that the bulk of the evidence shows that "races" are a social idea and that humans are more distinguished by haplogroups.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

So you are reducing the amount of genetic variation even more then?

How are Inuit genetically significantly different from Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats?

I never said they are genetically significantly different. There is probably very small differences between those groups as compared to differences with groups from the other side of the planet (like Australian Aboriginee groups).

Yes, it does. It says that the kind of classification that you are trying to impose is not supportable.

What type of classification are you claiming I'm trying to impose?

Because even good scientists are still humans with opinions.

The fact remains that with addition of the human genome project and the human migration studies that the bulk of the evidence shows that "races" are a social idea and that humans are more distinguished by haplogroups.

wa:do

You're trying to change the argument. I never argued either way about races only being a social idea. All I've said is that ethnic groups that developed relatively separately for a period of time have some genetic differences. The longer the seperation, the more likely the differences are to be greater.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said they are genetically significantly different. There is probably very small differences between those groups as compared to differences with groups from the other side of the planet (like Australian Aboriginee groups).

So now you're saying that there aren't significant differences between ethnic groups?

Or there are significant differences so long as you choose specific ethnic groups to compare outside of context with general human variation?

What type of classification are you claiming I'm trying to impose?

It seems a bit slippery as you've changed it up a bit... but a racial/ethnic one in which people of group 1 have subjective trait X while people of group 2 have subjective trait Y.

You're trying to change the argument. I never argued either way about races only being a social idea.

yeah, you did... you've repeatedly said that it isn't only a social construct.

All I've said is that ethnic groups that developed relatively separately for a period of time have some genetic differences. The longer the seperation, the more likely the differences are to be greater.

The same can be said about me an my cousins vs. me and my siblings.

Indeed even the most distantly related person to myself is still going to be at best my 50th cousin.

But at what point to these differences become "significant"?

Is my spouses blue eye gene significantly different from my brown eye gene?
What about a gene for cancer resistance vs. susceptibility?

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

So now you're saying that there aren't significant differences between ethnic groups?

Perhaps you misunderstood my answer to your question that was: "How are Inuit genetically significantly different from Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats?"

I replied that they (meaning Inuit, Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats) have very small genetic differences to each other as opposed to the difference between an ethnic group from the other side of the globe (Inuit vs. an Australian Aboriginee ethnic group).

So I hope that clears up the misunderstanding that caused you to say "So now you're saying that there aren't significant differences between ethnic groups?"
　
　

Or there are significant differences so long as you choose specific ethnic groups to compare outside of context with general human variation?

Not really clear what you're trying to say here.

It seems a bit slippery as you've changed it up a bit... but a racial/ethnic one in which people of group 1 have subjective trait X while people of group 2 have subjective trait Y.

I never would make the claim that what you stated above is my position. If I was that dumb I would hopefully at least be smart enough to keep my mouth shut on RF (ha, ha) and keep my hobbies to bowling and drinking.
　

yeah, you did... you've repeatedly said that it isn't only a social construct.
The same can be said about me an my cousins vs. me and my siblings.
Indeed even the most distantly related person to myself is still going to be at best my 50th cousin.
But at what point to these differences become "significant"?
Is my spouses blue eye gene significantly different from my brown eye gene?
What about a gene for cancer resistance vs. susceptibility?
wa:do

In our debate we were looking at 'significant' genetic ethnic differences as differences that would cause clear over and under representation of ethnic groups in certain areas of society. I argue the over and under group representation is caused by genetics and environment while you take the position that they are only caused by environment.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps you misunderstood my answer to your question that was: "How are Inuit genetically significantly different from Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats?"

I replied that they (meaning Inuit, Aleut, Yupiks, Siriniki and Inupats) have very small genetic differences to each other as opposed to the difference between an ethnic group from the other side of the globe (Inuit vs. an Australian Aboriginee ethnic group).

Even then the amount of difference isn't as great as you suppose.

So I hope that clears up the misunderstanding that caused you to say "So now you're saying that there aren't significant differences between ethnic groups?"

Some... but you are biasing your data by only choosing groups that are as disparate as possible and not accounting for the groups between the two.
It's like you are comparing a light grey and a dark grey and ignoring all the shades in between.
　

Not really clear what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying that you are massaging the data by ignoring the big picture.
When you compare Inuit and Australians you will see a big difference... when you add Asians to the comparison then the differences are not as great because you have more data that shows the continuity.

I never would make the claim that what you stated above is my position. If I was that dumb I would hopefully at least be smart enough to keep my mouth shut on RF (ha, ha) and keep my hobbies to bowling and drinking.

But that is essentially what you did when you said that people X (African Americans) are better at subjective measure Y (sports).

In our debate we were looking at 'significant' genetic ethnic differences as differences that would cause clear over and under representation of ethnic groups in certain areas of society. I argue the over and under group representation is caused by genetics and environment while you take the position that they are only caused by environment.

NO... my position is that it's both but that environment is ultimate while genetics is only the source of raw material.

And environment does influence genetics... it's called eppigenetics.

For example: If a mother smokes then that impacts the genetics of their child as well as other aspects of fetal development.
If a father smokes then it also impacts the genetics of the child.

Genetics is a very complex subject and you can't simply assign any subjective measure, such as athletic ability, to pure genetics.

Again, even if you have every gene that should make you a perfect athlete, you can still end up a fat slob. Genetics isn't destiny.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Even then the amount of difference isn't as great as you suppose.

I don't make a per-supposition about the differences. I use 'observation with intelligent analysis' to judge differences.

Some... but you are biasing your data by only choosing groups that are as disparate as possible and not accounting for the groups between the two.

Correct. That is just for the sake of giving the most clear/extreme example. I understand there is a spectrum between the most disparate groups and they would likely have traits intermediate to the most disparate ends.

It's like you are comparing a light grey and a dark grey and ignoring all the shades in between.

No, I only do that to make the most extreme example.
　

I'm saying that you are massaging the data by ignoring the big picture.
When you compare Inuit and Australians you will see a big difference... when you add Asians to the comparison then the differences are not as great because you have more data that shows the continuity.

Agreed. I agree there is a spectrum, not hard divisions, but that doesn't refute my point though.

But that is essentially what you did when you said that people X (African Americans) are better at subjective measure Y (sports).
NO... my position is that it's both but that environment is ultimate while genetics is only the source of raw material.

Well, doesn't the source of the raw material matter?

And environment does influence genetics... it's called eppigenetics.

For example: If a mother smokes then that impacts the genetics of their child as well as other aspects of fetal development.
If a father smokes then it also impacts the genetics of the child.

Good information I'd like to understand better. But it doesn't change my heredity AND environment argument.

Genetics is a very complex subject and you can't simply assign any subjective measure, such as athletic ability, to pure genetics.

Ah, as I have to keep reminding, I'm not attributing it to 'pure genetics'. I'm attributing it to genetics AND environment. You're the one arguing for the 'environment only' explanation and I'm arguing for the more complex explanation..

Again, even if you have every gene that should make you a perfect athlete, you can still end up a fat slob. Genetics isn't destiny.

Agreed. Genetics isn't destiny but it isn't meaningless either.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I don't make a per-supposition about the differences. I use 'observation with intelligent analysis' to judge differences.

Yet you admit that you don't understand genetics... so how can you hope to make a reasonable "intelligent analysis" let alone unbiased observations?

Correct. That is just for the sake of giving the most clear/extreme example. I understand there is a spectrum between the most disparate groups and they would likely have traits intermediate to the most disparate ends.

No, I only do that to make the most extreme example.

But your example is flawed because of this. It ignores reality to set up a false dichotomy.
　

Agreed. I agree there is a spectrum, not hard divisions, but that doesn't refute my point though.

It shows your argument is based on a false dichotomy. You can't argue that A and D are significantly different while ignoring B and C between them.

Well, doesn't the source of the raw material matter?

Sure it does... and mutations make each of us different from one another. Which is part of why one child can be a great athlete and their sibling can be a couch potato or one can have cancer but the other is healthy as an ox.... but it isn't the whole story and simply ascribing it to genetics is flawed.

Good information I'd like to understand better. But it doesn't change my heredity AND environment argument.

No but it should make you question which one is more important to the particular trait.

In terms of athletics all the evidence shows that environment is more important than heredity.

One of the most important environmental factors is development in the womb. From the mothers diet to the temperature/time of year. (example: winter babies are bigger than summer babies, which in turn has other effects)

Ah, as I have to keep reminding, I'm not attributing it to 'pure genetics'. I'm attributing it to genetics AND environment. You're the one arguing for the 'environment only' explanation and I'm arguing for the more complex explanation..

I'm not arguing for "environment only".

I'm arguing that in subjective cases like "athletic ability" or "intelligence" that environment is more important than heredity. Athletes and geniuses are essentially made not born.

In non-subjective measures, like disease susceptibility, then heredity is much clearer though environment is still an important factor. Having the breast cancer gene isn't a guarantee that you will get breast cancer.

Agreed. Genetics isn't destiny but it isn't meaningless either.

I'm not saying it's meaningless... just that it's all but impossible to tie a subjective measure like "athletic ability" to hereditary factors.
Now can you tie heredity to specific genetic disorders... yes, absolutely. But that is a very different subject.

wa:do