[Note from PP: The following is a guest article by commenter RR and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. Please post all off-topic comments in the open-thread. They will not be posted here]
Michael Hardimon has some of the best defenses of the reality of race that I am aware of. His 4 concepts are: the racialist concept (he says racialist races do not exist, which I will cover in the future), the minimalist race concept, the socialrace concept (which also will be covered more in depth in the future) and the populationist race concept. Racialist races do not exist, according to Hardimon. However, that does not mean that race does not exist nor does it mean that race isn’t real. On the contrary, race exists and is a biological reality. Simple arguments for the existence of race do indeed exist and see where mixed-race individuals, ‘Latinos’, and Brazilians fall. (Author of the book A Theory of Race Joshua Glasgow also reviewed Hardimon’s book (Glasgow, 2018), and I also left my thoughts on his review.)
Now, minimalist races exist and are biologically real. The concept, though, is vague. It doesn’t state which populations are races, but the populationist race concept, however, does. Hardimon (2017: 99) defines populationist races:
“A race is a subdivision of Homo sapiens—a group of populations that exhibits a distinctive pattern of genetically transmitted phenotypic characters that corresponds to the group’s geographic ancestry and belongs to a biological line of descent initiated by a geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding population.”
Are there groups that exhibit patterns of a distinctive pattern of visible physical features which are genetically transmitted and correspond to the group’s geographic ancestry? Are there groups that belong to a biological line of descent which was initiated by geographically and reproductively isolated founding populations? The answer is, obviously, yes. Which groups satisfy the definition of populationist races? I will discuss this below.
An important question to answer is: are races subspecies? The two terms are similar. Merriam Webster defines subspecies as: “a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.” While “race” is similarly defined. So, are races subspecies?
The fixation index (Fst) is a measure of population differentiation due to genetic structure which is estimated from SNPs or microsattelites. Generally, the accepted criterion for subspeciation is between .25 and .30. Human groups have an Fst between .05 and .15, so human groups fall way short of subspeciation. Fst estimates for humans fall between .05 and .15, which is far and away what the consensus is on the delineation of subspecies within a group of like kinds. Further, Fst does not support the existence of distinct clusters in humans (Maglo, Mersha, and Martin, 2016; it should be noted that they believe that for human races to exist, human races must be subspecies—similar views are held by philosopher of science Adam Hochman—but their contentions were addressed by Spencer, 2015). Human populations are not subspecies, and the fact that they are not subspecies does not rail against the existence of populationist races.
Hochman (2013) makes the case that in order to claim that clusters represent subspecies, four conditions have to be met: “(i) the range of allele frequency differences between genetic Fstclusters corresponding to race must be relatively uniform, (ii) there must be a determinate number of such clusters, (iii) the allelic frequencies within such clusters must be relatively homogeneous, and (iv) there must be a large jump in genetic differences between such clusters” (Hardimon, 2017: 108).
Thus, the human species does not contain subspecies in the technical sense of the word, as humans Fst estimates range between .05 to .15. This further attests to the fact that the clusters—identified by Rosenberg et al (2002)—are not subspecies. “There is no need for US racial groups to be subspecies or clades, have high genetic variation among them, or be fundamental categories in human population genetics just in order to be biologically real races. Rather, in order for US racial groups to be biologically real races, they just need to be races and biologically real (Spencer, 2015: 6).
The populationist race concept, however, does not require that a division in a species be represented by a particular Fst estimated. It further doesn’t say that Hochman’s (2013)conditions must be met in order for the clusters to be races. Therefore the populationist race concept is not a subspecies concept; there are no subspecies in our genus. Though, if we were forced to accept Hochman’s (2013) conditions (which we do not have to), human races do not exist.
Next is the concept of phylogeny. If phylogenetic is taken to in the normal biological terminology, then the question is whether or not racial lines of descent capture evolutionary significant relationships. And if “evolutionary significant relationships” are taken in the normal biological context then the answer to the question is “no.” This is because the term “evolutionary significance”, taken in the general biological terminology, is understood in a way that for a relationship between populations to be “evolutionarily significant”, then the differences between these populations must be blocked by extensive gene flow.
However, regarding the populations that we take to be populationist races, if the features of these races have adaptive significance, such as skin color for differing climates, then the populationist race concept is of interest to evolutionary biologists since biological raciation makes it possible for divisions of Homo sapiens to survive in different climates. Thus, when discussing how and why divisions of our species adapted to different climates—physically speaking—then this concept is of use to evolutionary biologists since it can explain the adaptive physical features of divisions of Homo sapiens. We then have two choices. We can then further take the idea that to be “phylogenetic”, populations must block extensive gene flow, though we can grant that populationist races may well be of interest to evolutionary biologists (due to their adaptive features that arose due to climatic adaption), despite the fact that populationist races are nonphylogenetic (Hardimon, 2017: 111).
The populationist race concept is a candidate scientific concept. This is because the concept uses biological terminology such as “reproductive isolation”, “transmitted phenotypic characteristics”, “founding population”, and “geographic ancestry.” Hardimon then discusses how and why the concept can form a scientific concept:
“… concept C has the “form” of a scientific concept in biology if
(i) it is formulated in a “biological vocabulary”,
(ii) it is framed in terms of an accepted biological outlook,
(iii) it is suitable for deployment in an accepted branch of biological inquiry, and
(iv) it presents the scientific ground of the phenomenon it represents” (Hardimon, 2017: 112).
This concept satisfies all four conditions. It satisfies (i) since it uses biological vocabulary (e.g., phenotype, reproductive isolation). It satisfies (ii) since it’s framed in what Mayr terms “population thinking” (which is the rejection of essentialism—“the view that some properties of objects are essential to them.”. It satisfies (iii) since it is suitable for deployment in ecology, ethology and evolutionary biology. Areas of study, for example, can focus on how and why differing populationist races have differing patterns of visible physical features (i.e., how and why phenotypes changed as migration occurred out of Africa into Eurasia, the Pacific Islands and the Americas). And it satisfies (iv) in that representing populationist races as having arisen from reproducively isolated founding populations.
Now which groups are candidates for populationist races? There are two conditions: (1) they exhibit distinctive patterns of phenotypic characters which correspond to that population’s geographic ancestry and (2) belong to biological lines of descent which then trace back to geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding populations.
There are populations which exhibit distinctive patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry, and they are Sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. The distinctive patterns of visible physical features are genetically transmitted, and they correspond to geographic ancestry. These populations belong to biological lines of descent which can then be traced back to geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding populations. Thus, conditions (1) and (2) are satisfied, therefore populationist races exist.
Further support for (iii) (that the populationist race concept can be deployed in the biological sciences) can be found in my article You Don’t Need Genes to Delineate Race. I discussed differences in gross morphology between the races; I discussed differences in physiognomy between the races; and, of course, the differences in geographic ancestry that caused the differences in morphology and physiognomy (see here for discussions on skin color). Differences in climate that Homo sapiens encountered after trekking out of Africa then caused the distinctive differences in visible physical features which correspond with geographic ancestry which then make up populationist races. Thus, the study of populationist races will elucidate the caused of phenotypic differences between populationist races since they exist and are a biological reality.
There is a relationship between populationist and minimalist races, though they’re defined by different concepts. However if minimalist races are populationist races, then the kind minimalist race=populationist race. “The claim that minimalist race=populationist race is analogous to the claim that water=H2O. The latter claim, since true, provides scientific insight into the nature of minimalist race” (Hardimon, 2017: 120).
Furthermore, we can assume that the populations identified by Lewontin (1972) as races can be interpreted as lending support to the biological reality of populationist races exist. We can also assume that African, Caucasians, East Asians, Oceanians, and Native Americans constitute populationist races, then Rosenberg et al (2002) show support for the biological reality of populationist races, even though the fraction of diversity separating the clusters is between 3-5 percent, this still shows that populationist races capture a portion of biological human variation, no matter how small it is.
“If it is assumed that Africans, Eurasians, East Asians, Oceanians, and Americans constitute continental-level populationist races, Rosenberg and colleagues’ 2002 study can be interpreted as providing support for the biological reality of populationist race inasmuch as it shows that a very small fraction (3-5 percent) of human genetic variation is due to difference among continental-level populationist races. Modulo our assumption, the study results indicate that populationist race is a minor principle of human genetic structure and that populationist race is a minor principle of human variation.” (Hardimon, 2017: 124)
The same points made that minimalist races are human population partitions, that races can be distinguished at the level of the gene, and that the continental-level minimalist races differ in a small number of coding genes, also carry over to the populationist race concept since minimalist race=populationist race, so the biological reality of minimalist race carry over to populationist race. So if the five populations are populationist races, then populationist race correspond to a partition of genetic variation found between the races in the human species, which is then evidence for the existence of populationist races.
The five populations that make up populationist races are Native Americans, Caucasians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Sub-Saharan Africans. These populations are biologically real, and they exist. They generically transmit phenotypic characteristics across the generations; these phenotypic characteristics differ due to geographic ancestry. These populations are identified in numerous K = 5 runs. So if we assume that the five populations are populationist races then K = 5 shows the real, but small, human genetic variation found within continental-level populationist races which is how the visible patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are genetically transmitted.
The populationist race concept is a candidate scientific concept. This is a way to study the small genetic variation between the continental-level clusters. Human phenotypic (and physiologic) differences arose due to adaption to different climates. Thus, since populationist race is a biological reality then studying populationist races will better elucidate how and why differences in phenotype arose.
Both the populationist and minimalist race concepts are vague, I admit. However, they’re not so vague that one could argue that villages, countrys, social classes etc are populationist races. It should be noted, though, that it is implicitly stated in the definition for populationist race, that a morphological component exists. Therefore, groups like the Amish, social classes etc. Thus, the populationist race concept gaurentees that races will be races in the ordinary sense of the word (see Hardimon, 2003). So we can take two groups—G1 and G2—and if G1 does not have any pattern of visible physical features which distinguish it from another group, G2, then G1 is not a race. These visible physical differences that distinguish races from one another are biological in nature—hair color/type, skin color, eye type, morphology etc. This gaurentees that different villages, countries, economic classes and ethnies within a race are not counted as “races”, so defined.
The thing about the populationist race concept is that it directly relates to the minimalist race concept. Once we acknowledge that races exist and are real (since minimalist races exist and are real), then we start thinking “Which populations sastisfy the conditions of populationist races?” The populationist race concept—in tandem with the minimalist race concept—shows us that the patterns in visible physical features are genetically transmitted characters which which correspond to the population’s geoprahic ancestry who belong to biological lines of descent which were initiated by geographically separated and genetically isolated founding populations. The populationist race concept supports the claim that the minimalist race concept is a biological concept and secures the existence of minimalist races since minimalist race=populationist race.
P1) The five populations demarcated by Rosenberg et al (2002) are populationist races; K = 5 demarcates populationist races.
P2) Populationist race=minimalist race.
P3) If populationist race=minimalist race, then everything from showing that minimalist races are a biological reality carrys over to populationist races.
P4) Populationist races capture differences in genetic variation between continents and this genetic variation is responsible for the distinctive patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry who belong to biological lines of descent which were initiated by geographically isolated founding populations.
C) Therefore, since populationist races=minmalist races, and visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are genetically transmitted by populations who belong to biological lines of descent, initiated by reproductively isolated founding populations, then populationist races exist and are biologically real.
Pumpkin Person 
The fixation index (Fst) is a measure of population differentiation due to genetic structure which is estimated from SNPs or microsattelites. Generally, the accepted criterion for subspeciation is between .25 and .30. Human groups have an Fst between .05 and .15, so human groups fall way short of subspeciation. Fst estimates for humans fall between .05 and .15, which is far and away what the consensus is on the delineation of subspecies within a group of like kinds.
Interesting, I didn’t know there was a precise genetic distance criterion. So if we accept this standard, it sounds likes anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals are two different subspecies of the same species. Guess that makes some sense when you consider they could interbreed (barely).
Though in paleontology, species is defined exclusively by morphology (since genetic distance and interbreeding ability was typically unknown), and by that criteririon they were judged to be different species.
But I don’t like using genetic distance to define taxonomic units because it’s impossible to have a successful species by this definition. For example Homo erectus was considered a wildly successful species because it lasted for millions of years, however based on genetic distance, there’s no way any species that lasts that long would be considered all one species since neutral genetic mutations accumulate as a function of time, so the first Erectus would be a different species from the last Erectus, and so would subgroups of Erectus separated for millions of years on different continents
One solution I’ve long suggested is to define it exclusively by non-neutral genetic distance
And if you are going to define subspecies by genetic distance, you should also define race by genetic distance, because race is to subspecies as subspecies is to race.
The .25 to .30 Fst estimate for subspeciation isn’t definitive; it is arbitrary.
It is tricky basing subspeciation on interbreeding though. If we found a band of Neanderthals alive, would we do testing on them that we wouldn’t do on ourselves?
Though, as quoted, Adam Hochman has attempted to show the criteria for subspecieshood with genetic clusters and humans don’t fit his criteria, thus race does not exist. However, the populationist concept of race does not need to satisfy these criteria since it does not purport to show that the races are subspecies. Whether or not human races are subspecies is irrelevant to the argument that human races exist.
Minimalist race=populationist race; so everything that applies to minimalist race applies to populationist race; therefore race exists and is a biological reality. Subspeciation does not need to be brought into the conversation.
This is a brilliant article. Very interesting.
No sarcasm please.
Why do you let RR blog so much on ur blog? Ive never seen a blog give this much time to another blogger. Its like hes your co blogger now.
Robert Lindsay would have co-bloggers all the time
I don’t agree with RR on much but he does do rigorous research
6 months ago you banned RR as well. Now he guest blogs. Seriously?
How did he get banned?
Now which groups are candidates for populationist races? There are two conditions: (1) they exhibit distinctive patterns of phenotypic characters which correspond to that population’s geographic ancestry and (2) belong to biological lines of descent which then trace back to geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding populations.
What if the biological line split long ago but both sub-groups retain the same distinctive pattern of phenotypic characteristics, as may have happened with sub-Saharan Africans and Andaman islanders? Would they be the same race? It depends on whether you accept paraphyletic taxa, a distinction that separates evolutionary taxonomy from cladistic nomenclature.
Andaman Islanders, when thinking of socialrace, would be classified as part of the “black race”, since socialrace is like racialist race. Andaman Islanders are not a part of the African race.
“There is an important difference between the idea that a visible physical feature figures in the definition of ‘race’ (as one definitional element among others) and the idea that race is defined (solely) in terms of that visible physical feature. Skin color does figure in the definition of ‘race,’ but that word is not defined in terms of skin color alone.” (Hardimon, 2017: 186)
Geographical origin, biological line of descent and reproductive isolation trump morphology in regard to describing which race-determining factors—which race a group of previously reproductively isolated human breeding populations belongs to.
And phenotypic similarities between Negritos and Africans are due to convergent evolution—they did not retain the so-called ‘ancient phenotypes’ of Africans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
And they have closer affinities to Asian than African populations:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202013362
Thus they would, I presume, cluster with Asians.
Andaman Islanders, when thinking of socialrace, would be classified as part of the “black race”, since socialrace is like racialist race. Andaman Islanders are not a part of the African race.
It depends whether you accept paraphyletic groups as races. Evolutionary taxonomists do.
And phenotypic similarities between Negritos and Africans are due to convergent evolution—they did not retain the so-called ‘ancient phenotypes’ of Africans.
I already had this discussion with phil78. There’s no way to know that unless you have a genomic predictor of the distinguishing African phenotype. What we do know is that their black skin did NOT evolve convergently, it was preserved from the original Out of Africa exodus. We don’t know about the other African features.
And they have closer affinities to Asian than African populations:
That’s because they’re more related to Asians by descent and thus would cluster with them on a lot of neutral DNA, but that doesn’t mean they don’t preserve the distinguishing phenotype they inherited from Africa. Asians by contrast lost that phenotype.
“It depends whether you accept paraphyletic groups as races. Evolutionary taxonomists do.”
They’d be socially “black” like Aborigines, but not truly “racially black” like Africans and African-Americans. Races are not monophyletic groups, I do agree that they are paraphyletic but that does not mean that Negritos are the same race as Africans.
“There’s no way to know that unless you have a genomic predictor of the distinguishing African phenotype. What we do know is that their black skin did NOT evolve convergently, it was preserved from the original Out of Africa exodus. We don’t know about the other African features.”
The protein-coding region sequences produced clear results, with no ambiguities, and showed that all 12 specimens possessed 10400T and 10398G, placing them in the Asian M haplogroup (Passarino et al. 1996; Macaulay and Richards 2000) and ruling out an African origin.
[…]
The early colonization of the Andaman archipelago by bearers of the M2 lineage supports the growing evidence of an early movement of humans through southern Asia and indicates that phenotypic similarities with African groups are convergent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
“That’s because they’re more related to Asians by descent and thus would cluster with them on a lot of neutral DNA, but that doesn’t mean they don’t preserve the distinguishing phenotype they inherited from Africa. Asians by contrast lost that phenotype.”
They don’t preserve it.
The protein-coding region sequences produced clear results, with no ambiguities, and showed that all 12 specimens possessed 10400T and 10398G, placing them in the Asian M haplogroup (Passarino et al. 1996; Macaulay and Richards 2000) and ruling out an African origin.
Ruling out a recent African origin, is what they mean. That is some people speculated they were survivors of a slave shipwreck or something like that. They can’t rule out that the African appearance has an ancient African origin.
The early colonization of the Andaman archipelago by bearers of the M2 lineage supports the growing evidence of an early movement of humans through southern Asia and indicates that phenotypic similarities with African groups are convergent.
Non sequitur. Just because a group left Africa 70 kya, doesn’t mean its similarity with modern Africans evolved independently. We now know that the most salient similarity Southern Asian types share with Africans was actually inherited from ancient Africans:
The new research would mean that darker-skinned people in regions outside of Africa, like southern India or Australia, didn’t just evolve that way due to sunlight but also inherited the gene variant that creates a darker pigment from Africans.
By the way, there is genetic evidence for a common origin between Australian Aborigines and Pacific Islanders:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/
“Ruling out a recent African origin, is what they mean. That is some people speculated they were survivors of a slave shipwreck or something like that. They can’t rule out that the African appearance has an ancient African origin.”
They did so later in the paper. Either way:
We therefore conclude that, even within geographic regions—for example, in Africa (Mbuti and Biaka) or the Philippines (Aeta and Batak)—the evolution of the human pygmy phenotype has occurred in a convergent manner.
Click to access Migliano%202013%20pygmies%20HumBiol.pdf
And genetic studies, as I’ve shown previously, do not lend credence to the fact that Andamanese people are African—they show Asian affinities, implying that they are the descendents of early Paleolithic colonizers of SE Asia:
“… the presence of a hitherto unidentified subset of the mtDNA Asian haplogroup M, and Asian-specific Y chromosome D, is consistent with the view that Andamanese are descendants of Paleolithic peoples who might have been widely dispersed in Asia in the past. Geographical isolation probably aided survival of ancient human lineages in the Andamans and other locations, whereas, in most of Asia, they were later largely assimilated or supplanted by Neolithic agriculturalists.”
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01336-2
The Aeta pygmies of the Philippines are Negritos. Convergent evolution can explain their phenotypes;
“was actually inherited from ancient Africans”
So what? Skin color is not the only racial marker.
You don’t accept K = 5 because it’s ‘arbitrary’, right? So how do you classify different races? Based on what criteria? Rushton criteria? Are Negritos part of the African race? Are Abos part of the African race along with Pacific Islanders?
K = 5 shows that that’s not true.
We therefore conclude that, even within geographic regions—for example, in Africa (Mbuti and Biaka) or the Philippines (Aeta and Batak)—the evolution of the human pygmy phenotype has occurred in a convergent manner.
I agree the short stature was likely convergent evolution, but being short is not what defines the African phenotype (some Africans tribes are very tall). It’s the distinctly African phenotype (black skin, kinky hair, flat broad nose, prognathism), that they may have inherited from Africa & then suffered from Island Dwarfism.
And genetic studies, as I’ve shown previously, do not lend credence to the fact that Andamanese people are African—they show Asian affinities, implying that they are the descendents of early Paleolithic colonizers of SE Asia:
Yes but the Paleolithic colonizers of SE Asia may have had an African phenotype since all humans started in Africa. The Andaman Islanders being isolated on the islands may have preserved that ancient phenotype, while other Asians evolved new racial phenotypes
So what? Skin color is not the only racial marker.
Yes, but if one of the African looking traits came from Africa, it’s possible most or even all of them did
You don’t accept K = 5 because it’s ‘arbitrary’, right? So how do you classify different races? Based on what criteria? Rushton criteria? Are Negritos part of the African race? Are Abos part of the African race along with Pacific Islanders?
I would calculate the genetic distance between all populations using only non-neutral DNA (since neutral DNA can mutate without affecting functional phenotype) and then do a hierarchical factor analysis and let that tell me how many large group factors there are. It might end up confirming K = 5, but I wouldn’t just assume K = 5 a priori.
“I agree the short stature was likely convergent evolution, but being short is not what defines the African phenotype”
It’s about the pygmy phenotype.
“Yes but the Paleolithic colonizers of SE Asia may have had an African phenotype since all humans started in Africa.”
Evidence?
“Yes, but if one of the African looking traits came from Africa, it’s possible most or even all of them did”
How, when there is a ton of evidence pointing towards convergence?
“I would calculate the genetic distance between all populations using only non-neutral DNA (since neutral DNA can mutate without affecting functional phenotype) and then do a hierarchical factor analysis and let that tell me how many large group factors there are. It might end up confirming K = 5, but I wouldn’t just assume K = 5 a priori.”
Is there evidence for the claim? Assuming K = 5 a priori is irrelevant to the fact that the clusters are clearly demarcated.
What is your criteria for raciation and what do you think of the populationist race concept and its premises?
It satisfies (iii) since it is suitable for deployment in ecology, ethology and evolutionary biology. Areas of study, for example, can focus on how and why differing populationist races have differing patterns of visible physical features (i.e., how and why phenotypes changed as migration occurred out of Africa into Eurasia, the Pacific Islands and the Americas). And it satisfies (iv) in that representing populationist races as having arisen from reproducively isolated founding populations.
But in biology the most likely reason for those differences is genetic drift or other random sampling effects, rather than any specific adaptation due to ‘founder’s effects’ or ‘reproductive isolation.’
The H^2 of skin color, for example, is very high, which alone cuts against it being some specific adaptation.
And migration has occurred with enough frequency within the human race to strongly cut against any assumption of true or meaningful reproductive isolation, i.e. for lengths of significant evolutionary time.
However, they’re not so vague that one could argue that villages, countrys, social classes etc are populationist races. It should be noted, though, that it is implicitly stated in the definition for populationist race, that a morphological component exists. Therefore, groups like the Amish, social classes etc. Thus, the populationist race concept gaurentees that races will be races in the ordinary sense of the word (see Hardimon, 2003). So we can take two groups—G1 and G2—and if G1 does not have any pattern of visible physical features which distinguish it from another group, G2, then G1 is not a race.
You’re assuming your argument again. The idea is that pretty much any two human populations arbitrarily drawn will exhibit morphological and phenotypical differences strictly due to the act of sampling itself. So if we were to draw a circle around ‘Amish’ and then another around another religious group that had a historical geography, we would find these differences as well.
“The primary genetic impact of the establishment of a new evolutionary lineage is that the lineage accumulates genetic differences from the remaining descendents of the ancestral population with increasing time since the split. Immediately after the split, the subpopulations would share most ancestral polymorphisms (gene loci with more than one allele) and would therefore be difficult to diagnose as separate lineages. With increasing time since the split, genetic divergence accumulates and diagnosing the separate lineages becomes easier. A split into separate lineages also means that the genetic differences among the races would define an evolutionary tree analogous to an evolutionary tree of species. Statistical methods exist for testing the null hypothesis that the genetic variation within a species has a tree-like structure, and other statistics test the null hypothesis that the entire sample defines a single evolutionary lineage (Templeton, 1998b, 1999; Templeton, 2001). Therefore, just as with the fst definition, the lineage definition of race can be implemented in an objective fashion using uniform criteria, thereby avoiding an anthropocentric or cultural definition of race.”
“Geographical distance is often not a straight-line distance, but rather a distance measure than can incorporate known dispersal barriers, such as oceans for a terrestrial species. It is also possible to include non-geographic factors, such as song dialect or language, into a distance measure. All the populations within a species could be in an interconnected network of stepping-stones such that there are no sharp genetic boundaries separating populations. Instead, genetic differentiation exists in a gradual, clinal pattern across the appropriate distance measure. Therefore, genetic differentiation alone does not imply a tree-like structure, which should always be regarded as a hypothesis to be tested and not assumed (Smouse, 1998). There are multiple ways of testing the fit of the genetic data to an evolutionary tree (called “treeness”).”
“Do human races exist using the same criteria applied to chimpanzees? Rosenberg et al. (2002) performed a genetic survey of 52 human populations. They used a computer program to sort individuals or portions of their genomes into five groups, and discovered that the genetic ancestry of most individuals was inferred to come from just one group. Moreover, the five groups corresponded to 1) sub-Saharan Africans; 2) Europeans, Near & Middle Easterners, and Central Asians; 3) East Asians; 4) Pacific populations; and 5) Amerindians. This paper was the most widely cited article from the journal Science in 2002, and many of these citations claimed that this paper supported the idea that races were biologically meaningful in humans (e.g., Burchard et al., 2003). However, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were more cautious. When they increased the number of groups beyond five, they also obtained an excellent classification into smaller, more regional groups. Hence, they were showing that with enough genetic markers, it is possible to discriminate most local human populations from one another. Recall that genetic differentiation alone does not necessarily mean that any of these groups are races.”
“Turning to the lineage definition, Figure 2 is consistent with an isolation-by-distance pattern and not a tree-like structure. Hence, using the same criteria for rejecting the racial status of the traditionally named subspecies of chimpanzees from equatorial Africa, the existence of human races as evolutionary lineages is similarly rejected.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
“One solution to these problems of using ecotypes as races in humans is to simply abandon the subspecies concept of race entirely and define human races solely through ecotype status (Pigliucci & Kaplan, 2003). This solution does not solve the main problem that the subspecies concept of race addressed: avoiding cultural biases in a definition of human race. All species, humans included, adapt to many environmental factors, not just one. Frequently, different adaptive traits display discordant geographical distributions because the underlying environmental factors have discordant geographical distributions. As a result, one will get different ecotypes for different adaptations. This is not a problem for how the ecotype concept is used in the general evolutionary literature, but it raises a critical problem for implementing the ecotype concept as a definition of race in humans. Depending upon which adaptive trait is chosen, one will get very different “races”. So which adaptive traits should be used and which should be ignored? Evolutionary biology provides no objective way of addressing the question of choice of adaptive traits, so the ecotype concept of race in humans is yet another subjective, culturally sensitive concept of “race.”
“But in biology the most likely reason for those differences is genetic drift or other random sampling effects, rather than any specific adaptation due to ‘founder’s effects’ or ‘reproductive isolation.’”
What’s the argument?
“The H^2 of skin color, for example, is very high, which alone cuts against it being some specific adaptation.”
Skin color isn’t an adaptation?
“So if we were to draw a circle around ‘Amish’ and then another around another religious group that had a historical geography, we would find these differences as well.”
I explained why this is false.
“Recall that genetic differentiation alone does not necessarily mean that any of these groups are races.”
The argument established that the groups (populations) are races.
The populationist race concept is far superior to the ecotype model.
What’s the argument?
The argument is that random sampling effects != biologically meaningful information about a population warranting taxonomic classification. It does not tell us anything. Nothing in the argument contends with that simple point. What is BIOLOGICALLY USEFUL about these classifications? There’s no evidence that they give us any information about the groups unique to those groups.
I explained why this is false.
No. You asserted this “So we can take two groups—G1 and G2—and if G1 does not have any pattern of visible physical features which distinguish it from another group, G2, then G1 is not a race. These visible physical differences that distinguish races from one another are biological in nature—hair color/type, skin color, eye type, morphology etc. This gaurentees that different villages, countries, economic classes and ethnies within a race are not counted as “races”, so defined.”
Again, pretty much any two populations of homo sapien sapiens will indeed differ based on visible physical features that allow one to distinguish between ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ as you called it.
So there is no ‘guarantee’ beyond your bare assertion.
Skin color isn’t an adaptation?
An adaptation confers fitness benefits. It may well be that mutation in certain climates with certain UV exposure/sun exposure/temperature/whatever combined with the population increasingly becoming that color because the mutation itself spread produced the change in skin color without any real selective pressure at all. Point being, there’s no real consensus on whether it’s an actual adaptation or something else, with multiple theories in play at this time.
And the larger point is that these traits we’re discussing haven’t been conclusively shown to even be the result any significant selective pressure. The larger larger point is that even if they were, the presence of so much intra-group variation versus inter-group variation still leaves the question: what is so special about these groups?
The argument established that the groups (populations) are races.
But not that ‘races’ have any biological significance.
“There’s no evidence that they give us any information about the groups unique to those groups.”
Why can’t phenotype be used? The fact that different geographic populations show different physical features are products of the environment they’ve evolved in. It’s due to climatic differences (along with racial differences in physiology).
“What is BIOLOGICALLY USEFUL about these classifications?”
Disease burden, studying racism as a social determinant of health, studying race-related, medically relevant genetic differences (for instance, the fact that observations appear to exist in differences in mortality and health). (Of course the social race concept would be great at studying health-related differences due to racism, though all of the concepts Hardimon proposes can be used to study social determinant of health). Also, the fact that there are 3-5 percent genetic differences between the races in Rosenberg et al (2002) suggest that there are average differences among races in functional coding alleles other than those responsible for the pattern of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry—disease susceptibility, in some ways, too, differs by geographic ancestry.
“Again, pretty much any two populations of homo sapien sapiens will indeed differ based on visible physical features that allow one to distinguish between ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ as you called it.”
It doesn’t mean they’re races.
“It may well be that mutation in certain climates with certain UV exposure/sun exposure/temperature/whatever combined with the population increasingly becoming that color because the mutation itself spread produced the change in skin color without any real selective pressure at all.”
See my articles on skin color.
“what is so special about these groups?”
They exist and are biologically interesting and studying these races can better help lower mortality rates for at-risk races.
“But not that ‘races’ have any biological significance.”
That there are patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry shows that races have biological significance (along with differing in susceptibility to disease). I’d say that’s pretty significant biological significance. Helping different races heighten their quality of life through medical genetics or whatnot I think is very important.
“Philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Kaplan’s concept of race as ecotype differs from Dobzhansky’s genetic race concept in that it satisfies the phenotype constraint his failed to meet. It represents races (that is, ecoraces) as populations exhibiting phenotypic differences that are ecologically adapted to a particular environment. But it makes no provisions of ancestry and because of this is discontinuous with the minimalist and ordinary concepts of race. Race as ecotype counts two populations that exhibit the same ecotype as one and the same race even if the populations do not share a common geographical ancestry peculiar to them. Thus, if sub-Saharan Africans and Negritos share the same ecotype, it would count them as belonging to one race. The counterintuitiveness of this result reflects the fact that the concept of race as ecotype is at odds with the ordinary concord of race.
Pigliucci and Kalpan more or less acknowledge the discontinuity between their race concept and the ordinary concept of race. They allow that human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with ‘folk’ racial categories, grant that ecotypic races have little or nothing in common with ‘folk’ races, and go so far as to recommend avoiding the use of the term ‘race’ to express the concept of race as ecotype and respect to the human case. The idea that a race concept advertised as being applicable to human beings should not be applied to human beings using the word ‘race’ is curious. Why call it a race concept at all? Why not present ECOTYPE as a concept that can be illuminatingly applies to human beings and leave the question of race to the side? Contrary to the pedagogical promise of their article’s title (“On the Concept of Biological Face and Its Applicability to Humans”), the question their essay addresses is not the general question (which concerns race as ordinarily understood) concerning the existence of biological races but instead the rather different question whether it is possible find a “race concept”—that is, some notion or other that can be called a “race concept”—that can be applied to human beings. In order for a scientific concept to bear on the general question concerning the existence of biological races, the group’s it counts as races must be races in the ordinary sense of the term.” (Hardimon, 2017: 115-116, bold is my emphasis.)
If populationist races exist (which, as argued, they do), then they are ecotypes (just like the minimalist races, since minimalist race=populationist race). They’re ecoraces since they consist of groups of individuals who share one or more adaptations to a specific environment, but, unlike Pigliucci and Kaplan’s ecotype concept, neither of Hardimon’s concepts are strictly defined in terms of adaptation to specific environments; they exhibit adaptive variation yet these concepts are not based on adaptive variation. Of course not all of the distinctive visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry which in part define populationist races are adaptations; not all ecotypes are races.
Why can’t phenotype be used? The fact that different geographic populations show different physical features are products of the environment they’ve evolved in. It’s due to climatic differences (along with racial differences in physiology).
Because pretty much any two populations will exhibit phenotypal differences…
…and the jury is still out on whether the reason for those phenotypal differences in even K=5 racial populations is due to climatic difference/environmental adaptation.
Also, the fact that there are 3-5 percent genetic differences between the races in Rosenberg et al (2002) suggest that there are average differences among races in functional coding alleles other than those responsible for the pattern of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry—disease susceptibility, in some ways, too, differs by geographic ancestry
Again, that still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.
Disease burden, studying racism as a social determinant of health, studying race-related, medically relevant genetic differences (for instance, the fact that observations appear to exist in differences in mortality and health)
None of those need race to be a biologically significant concept for study. The social construct of race, as has been stated, can be USEFUL.
And a lot of the literature regarding ‘genetic differences’ in health, for instance, don’t really tease out whether the differences are genetic vs. ‘environmental,’ because as we know, environments also run in families and are common to each race.
They exist and are biologically interesting and studying these races can better help lower mortality rates for at-risk races.
They’re not biologically interesting according to the definition of that term most biologists seem to use.
Again, studying ‘races’ doesn’t need them to be ‘biologically meaningful.’
It doesn’t mean they’re races.
The only reason they wouldn’t be races is arbitrary fudging with demarcations on what counts as geographic location/ancestry, etc.
I’d say that’s pretty significant biological significance.
Only in your specific arbitrary context. When I use ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ of Texas and Norway village, suddenly, those criteria don’t interest you at all.
If populationist races exist (which, as argued, they do), then they are ecotypes (just like the minimalist races, since minimalist race=populationist race).
I’m not sure what the purpose of this is…the source I quoted analyzed several different attempts to categorize humans into races, the ecotype concept being one of them, and found that none of them met taxonomical biology standards.
“Because pretty much any two populations will exhibit phenotypal differences…”
That doesn’t mean they’re races…
“…and the jury is still out on whether the reason for those phenotypal differences in even K=5 racial populations is due to climatic difference/environmental adaptation.”
Whats the argument?
“Again, that still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.”
The underlying generic structure is there, however small it may be. What’s the argument?
“None of those need race to be a biologically significant concept for study. The social construct of race, as has been stated, can be USEFUL”
I agree, this doesn’t mean that biological differences between the races don’t exist though. Race us both social and biological after all. Race can manifest in that way too, even if it isn’t truly “biological”.
“because as we know, environments also run in families and are common to each race.”
I agree. But there are some things that are “genetic” in the sense that allelic differences between populations are part of the cause of differential outcomes in X.
“They’re not biologically interesting according to the definition of that term most biologists seem to use.
Again, studying ‘races’ doesn’t need them to be ‘biologically meaningful.’”
Why?
“The only reason they wouldn’t be races is arbitrary fudging with demarcations on what counts as geographic location/ancestry, etc.”
You’re the one claiming that ethnicity=race.
“Only in your specific arbitrary context. When I use ‘G1’ and ‘G2’ of Texas and Norway village, suddenly, those criteria don’t interest you at all.”
Ethnicity isn’t race.
“the source I quoted analyzed several different attempts to categorize humans into races, the ecotype concept being one of them, and found that none of them met taxonomical biology standards.”
So? It didn’t analyzed the PRC or MRC.
That doesn’t mean they’re races…
..based on arbitrary cut-off points in time (ancestry) or location (geography). The argument fails to give any evidence for why we should prefer your cut-off points vs. mine for the Texas and Norway village.
Whats the argument?
“Again, that still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.”
The underlying generic structure is there, however small it may be. What’s the argument?
“Again, that still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.”
I agree, this doesn’t mean that biological differences between the races don’t exist though
I’ve already said that NO ONE argues that biological differences do NOT exist.
““Again, that still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.””
Again, studying ‘races’ doesn’t need them to be ‘biologically meaningful.’”
Classifying them utilizing formal biological taxonomy does.
You’re the one claiming that ethnicity=race.
In the sense that both are social constructions…
Ethnicity isn’t race.
Nothing of what I’m saying equates the two. Ethnicity concerns cultural norms, race concerns ‘morphology.’ Nothing I said discussed the culture of the Texas village and Norway village.
So? It didn’t analyzed the PRC or MRC.
In dealing with the others, it dealt with the primary contentions of the ‘PRC’ and ‘MRC.’
Again, the main counter-point is those arguments ‘still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.”“
Oh, sorry wrt studying races and biologically meaningful, you said ‘Why?’
Unless you’re going to say that the only categories ever studied are ones with complete biological meaning, the answer is self-evident.
“still doesn’t speak to WHY the differences exist — is it the result of simple sampling or is it the result of something intrinsic to the population studied? There’s really no evidence of the latter.”“”
It’s not due to sampling error.
Rosenberg et al (2005) found that if sufficient data are used, “the geographic distribution of the sampled individuals has little effect on the analysis“, while their results verify that genetic clusters “arise from genuine features of the underlying pattern of human genetic variation, rather than as artifacts of uneven sampling along continuous gradients of allele frequencies.”
And Texas town and Norway village would be ethnies, not races.
Lol, when you stack the deck ridiculously in your favor and all but misrepresent what STRUCTURE does, I guess you can make such outrageous assertions:
“Clustering does not particularly correspond to continental divisions. Depending on the parameters given to their analytical program, Rosenberg and Pritchard were able to construct between divisions of between 4 and 20 clusters of the genomes studied, although they excluded analysis with more than 6 clusters from their published article. Probability values for various cluster configurations varied widely, with the single most likely configuration coming with 16 clusters although other 16-cluster configurations had low probabilities. Overall, “there is no clear evidence that K=6 was the best estimate” according to geneticist Deborah Bolnick (2008:76-77).[35] The number of genetic clusters used in the study was arbitrarily chosen. Although the original research used different number of clusters, the published study emphasized six genetic clusters. The number of genetic clusters is determined by the user of the computer software conducting the study. Rosenberg later revealed that his team used pre-conceived numbers of genetic clusters from six to twenty “but did not publish those results because Structure [the computer program used] identified multiple ways to divide the sampled individuals“.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering#Clusters_by_Rosenberg_et_al._(2002,_2005)
And Texas town and Norway village would be ethnies, not races.
No they would not be if we’re just talking about the PEOPLE located in each. We’re not talking about their social mores or customs.
Those objections have been addressed. It’s not arbitrary, I’ve already said that microsatellites constitute a nonarbitrary way to delineate these populations since they’re demarcated.
“No they would not be if we’re just talking about the PEOPLE located in each.”
When talking about “the PEOPLE” does it necessarily mean “race/ethnicity” or individuals?
The fact that morphology is in the conditions takes those two groups of of the race talk in regard to populationist races.
The argument at the end of the article is sound.
P1) The five populations demarcated by Rosenberg et al (2002) are populationist races; K = 5 demarcates populationist races.
P2) Populationist race=minimalist race.
P3) If populationist race=minimalist race, then everything from showing that minimalist races are a biological reality carrys over to populationist races.
P4) Populationist races capture differences in genetic variation between continents and this genetic variation is responsible for the distinctive patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry who belong to biological lines of descent which were initiated by geographically isolated founding populations.
C) Therefore, since populationist races=minmalist races, and visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are genetically transmitted by populations who belong to biological lines of descent, initiated by reproductively isolated founding populations, then populationist races exist and are biologically real.
“When talking about “the PEOPLE” does it necessarily mean “race/ethnicity” or individuals?”
When talking about people without any attention to social customs, then it’s just a population and if it fits C1-C3, it’s a population that is a race.
And the phenotypical differences, i.e. morphological differences, we observe between these two populations definitely would not take it out of the C1-C3 ‘race’ category.
I’ve already said that microsatellites constitute a nonarbitrary way to delineate these populations since they’re demarcated.
What is arbitrary is the number. You can use the same genomic data to generate many different numbers of K. Thus far, there still is no argument as to why we should prefer K = 5 to ANY other number.
which correspond to geographic ancestry who belong to biological lines of descent which were initiated by geographically isolated founding populations.
There is also pretty much no support for meaningful ‘geographical reproductive isolation’ between human populations. That’s a big reason why the ‘tree structure’ was rejected as describing human populations.
“When talking about people without any attention to social customs, then it’s just a population and if it fits C1-C3, it’s a population that is a race.”
No. C1 says that people who belong to different races generally look different from one another. When thinking of a race we think of a distinctive phenotype. Texas town and Norway village don’t have a distinctive phenotype; not a racial phenotype.
“And the phenotypical differences, i.e. morphological differences, we observe between these two populations definitely would not take it out of the C1-C3 ‘race’ category.”
To count as “racial” a trait must be real. If there are no differences between one group compared to another, group 1 is not a race. This guarantees that townspeople, like you’re trying to argue, aren’t different races.
When thinking about these concepts, we think “this skin color goes with this race, this eye shale, this hair type etc.” Groups don’t need sharp boundaries to he considered races; but you, again, are taking the conditions further than what they allow. Races are morphologically marked ancestry groups.
“Thus far, there still is no argument as to why we should prefer K = 5 to ANY other number.”
P1) If the clusters made by STRUCTURE are distinctly delineated, they speak to real, albeit small, differences between populations.
P2) The clusters made by STRUCTURE are clearly delineated; its possible to use genetic information to assign individuals to clusters without a priori knowledge of their individual origins.
C) Therefore K = 5 is a nonarbitrary way to group humans, which speaks to real continental-level differences between the populations we call races.
“There is also pretty much no support for meaningful ‘geographical reproductive isolation’ between human populations.”
Geographic barriers, such as desert and seas, as well as social factors, are isolating mechanisms. Geographic factors are essential to raciation. The hallmark of reproductive isolation in regard to populationist race is” when members of a different populationist race are brought into geographical proximity, then, providing no social factors opposed their union, they tend to reproduce (Hardimon, 2017: 105). So yes, there is support, albeit not what you were looking for.
No. C1 says that people who belong to different races generally look different from one another. When thinking of a race we think appeal to arbitrary personal preference] of a distinctive phenotype. Texas town and Norway village don’t have a distinctive phenotype; not a racial phenotype.
Whenever you use the phrase ‘we think,’ that’s just an appeal to what your personal opinion is of a ‘distinctive phenotype.’ The fact is that a) the people in those regions LOOK DIFFERENT based on b) ‘genetically controlled’ phenotypes.
To count as “racial” a trait must be real. If there are no differences between one group compared to another, group 1 is not a race. This guarantees that townspeople, like you’re trying to argue, aren’t different races.
When thinking about these concepts, we think [appeal to arbitrary personal preference] “this skin color goes with this race, this eye shale, this hair type etc.”
You keep doing it over and over and over again. You’re assuming your argument by saying ‘ah we think BASED ON CURRENT SOCIETY’S VIEW OF RACE that ‘x, y, and z’ THEREFORE this view of race is…
C) Therefore K = 5 is a nonarbitrary way to group humans, which speaks to real continental-level differences between the populations we call races.
This fails to respond to the point. That response FAILS to answer this: ‘“Thus far, there still is no argument as to why we should prefer K = 5 to ANY other number.” Those conditions you listed hold for many different values of K…
when members of a different populationist race are brought into geographical proximity, then, providing no social factors opposed their union, they tend to reproduce
Huh?
That statement doesn’t say anything. ‘When members of a different populationist race are brought into geographical proximity (with each other?) they reproduce?” So if two people who are socially considered to be of race X and Y reproduce, that means they are reproductively isolated from other ‘races?”
That is completely unscientific and not what is meant in biology by reproductive isolation (it’s pretty much the opposite): “tThe environment may impose an external barrier to reproduction, such as a river or mountain range, between two incipient species but that external barrier alone will not make them separate, full-fledged species. Allopatry may start the process off, but the evolution of internal (i.e., genetically-based) barriers to gene flow is necessary for speciation to be complete. If internal barriers to gene flow do not evolve, individuals from the two parts of the population will freely interbreed if they come back into contact. Whatever genetic differences may have evolved will disappear as their genes mix back together. Speciation requires that the two incipient species be unable to produce viable offspring together or that they avoid mating with members of the other group.”
While you’re not arguing races are subspecies, you are arguing some slight degree of ‘speciation,’ i.e. genetic divergence, that would be worthy of taxonomic classification. The last sentence, tailored to the smaller degree of speciation you’re arguing for here. Have these populations meaningfully avoided mating with members of the other group? Not much evidence for that. Maybe groups that are like…across the globe from one another, but even then…human beings migrate.
Geographic barriers can be isolating mechanisms. It doesn’t mean that they meaningfully are in the case of humanity…
“Whenever you use the phrase ‘we think”
That was a typo. “We apply” was correct.
“The fact is that a) the people in those regions LOOK DIFFERENT based on b) ‘genetically controlled’ phenotypes.”
They’re ethnies of the same race. Equivocation again.
“You’re assuming your argument by saying ‘ah we think BASED ON CURRENT SOCIETY’S VIEW OF RACE that ‘x, y, and z’ THEREFORE this view of race is…”
Because C1 established that different populations have differing phenotypes based on geographic isolation and adaptation to environment. That’s why it’s “assuming”, because those phenotypes establish racial differences.
“Thus far, there still is no argument as to why we should prefer K = 5 to ANY other number.””
Read Quayshawn Spencer’s paper “A Radical Solution to the Race Problem”, section 4.
“So if two people who are socially considered to be of race X and Y reproduce, that means they are reproductively isolated from other ‘races?””
You’re conflating two concepts.
“That is completely unscientific and not what is meant in biology by reproductive isolation”
I’m aware that it’s not the typical definition, but recall that I’m not arguing that populationist races are subspecies.
“you are arguing some slight degree of ‘speciation,’ i.e. genetic divergence, that would be worthy of taxonomic classification.”
Yes.
“Maybe groups that are like…across the globe from one another, but even then…human beings migrate”
Geographic barriers still exist which is Hardimon’s point.
“It doesn’t mean that they meaningfully are in the case of humanity…”
Why?
They’re ethnies of the same race. Equivocation again.
It isn’t equivocation at all.
“the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.”
The population texas village and norway village does not denote anything national (I only use Texas and Norway as raw examples of geography) or cultural. It’s just the set of people in those particular areas. Nothing ethnic about it.
Because C1 established that different populations have differing phenotypes based on geographic isolation and adaptation to environment. That’s why it’s “assuming”, because those phenotypes establish racial differences.
And you’re assuming that for whatever reason the real observed phenotypical differences between those two population somehow are not the same exact thing, based on “we apply” (personal arbitrary cut-off).
Read Quayshawn Spencer’s paper “A Radical Solution to the Race Problem”, section 4.
Lol. Read the consensus of biologists on ‘race.’
Or just directly respond to the point.
Geographic barriers still exist which is Hardimon’s point.
Then it’s not a point if those geographic barriers don’t meaningfully impact reproduction across populations, which, according to the research — they do not.
Why?
I’m aware that it’s not the typical definition, but recall that I’m not arguing that populationist races are subspecies.
You’re arguing that some degree speciation (genetic divergence) has occurred (otherwise there is ZERO reason to enlist biological taxonomy)…perhaps not to the level of what is typically called a subspecies.
And if it isn’t the typical definition then it falls apart as a matter of ‘concept C has the “form” of a scientific concept in biology if
(i) it is formulated in a “biological vocabulary”,’
It is not formulated using biological vocabulary.
Now, if your point only is that some amount of arbitrary human populations exhibit differences that are due to allele frequencies within the populations…sure. That’s fine. But that doesn’t make races anything beyond a social construction, because if they are not worthy of biological taxonomy, they are just a social thing — despite being biologically ‘real’ per the definition above.
“Nothing ethnic about it.”
“Texas town” gives no information on the type of people that are there; Swedish village does (Swedes). I presume you’re referring to white Texans, in which case they’re an ethny of the Caucasian race. Again, the morphology requirement excuses those two groups from “raciation”. The 3 conditions don’t apply.
“And you’re assuming that for whatever reason the real observed phenotypical differences between those two population somehow are not the same exact thing, based on “we apply” (personal arbitrary cut-off).”
What’s a “personal arbitrary cut-off”? Are we trying to understand race as apart of our ontology or not?
“Or just directly respond to the point.”
I did respond to the point.
“Then it’s not a point if those geographic barriers don’t meaningfully impact reproduction across populations, which, according to the research — they do not.”
Except over human history these geographic barriers impeded racial interbreeding.
“It is not formulated using biological vocabulary.”
Phenotype, founding population and reproductive isolation aren’t “biological vocabulary”? In what way?
“But that doesn’t make races anything beyond a social construction, because if they are not worthy of biological taxonomy, they are just a social thing — despite being biologically ‘real’ per the definition above.”
I agree with you—race is both a social and biological construction. But when you say “social construct” what do you mean?
“Texas town” gives no information on the type of people that are there; Swedish village does (Swedes).
Yes it does. Go draw a circle around the human population in both of those geographic areas, that’s who the populations will be. You’re holding on to assumptions, still….
Here, just imagine longitude latitude coordinates somewhere within Texas and somewhere within Norway that outline a circle. Stop thinking of them in terms of Texan and Swede. Just think two random groups of people located in a particular place.
I presume you’re referring to white Texans, in which case they’re an ethny of the Caucasian race.
You presume WRONG. You keep ASSUMING many things not stated. I am talking about EVERY SINGLE person within those geographic locations. GUARANTEED they will exhibit, on average, differences in phenotype and morphology resultant from allele frequency.
And again, if we aren’t talking about cultural or social norms, there’s no ‘ethny’ anything to talk about.
What’s a “personal arbitrary cut-off”? Are we trying to understand race as apart of our ontology or not?
You refuse to accept the morphological differences between the groups of people in Texas and Norway because you’re assuming that their morphological differences won’t rise to the level of ‘race,’ but the argument does not specify a specific amount of morphological difference necessary for a morphological difference to properly be considered as such. From its terms any such difference between groups due to genetic differences between the groups will qualify.
That’s why I’m not equivocating. The argument itself is unclear and vague and, as your responses show, is heavily dependent on filling in a lot of blanks that themselves are the product of current society’s understanding of what morphological differences are racial differences.
Except over human history these geographic barriers impeded racial interbreeding.
But they didn’t…not to a biologically significant degree. The FsT values show this, the cophentic correlations show this…
…and this has only become more evident as civilization has progressed, with earthbound distances between populations, thanks to technology, presenting zero isolation at this point.
Phenotype, founding population and reproductive isolation aren’t “biological vocabulary”? In what way?
You admitted that the definition for reproductive isolation was not the ‘typical definition.’ So it can’t be biological vocabulary when it uses a different definition.
The argument requires all its concepts to be formulated using biological vocabulary — it’s conjunctive. So if one definition is not part of biological vocabulary, which you admitted, the entire race concept it propagates falls apart by its own terms.
But when you say “social construct” what do you mean?
I mean an entity created abstractly that may or may not correspond to some tangible real quality and may or may not be useful that, nevertheless, does not meet scientific classification standards.
Not unlike the social construct of a ‘bitchin’ ride.’ I’m sure that we could separate ‘bitchin’ rides’ into separate classes or types that would correspond to REAL qualities of cars, and that despite this, no automobile engineer would think to include the term ‘bitchin’ ride’ in his study of automobiles.
“Yes it does. Go draw a circle around the human population in both of those geographic areas, that’s who the populations will be. You’re holding on to assumptions, still….”
This guy made the same arguments as you:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/04/races-and-populations-existence-and-reality/
“I am talking about EVERY SINGLE person within those geographic locations. GUARANTEED they will exhibit, on average, differences in phenotype and morphology resultant from allele frequency.”
So what? That doesn’t denote them “racehood.”
“You refuse to accept the morphological differences between the groups of people in Texas and Norway because you’re assuming that their morphological differences won’t rise to the level of ‘race,’ but the argument does not specify a specific amount of morphological difference necessary for a morphological difference to properly be considered as such. From its terms any such difference between groups due to genetic differences between the groups will qualify.”
The G group argument shows why I should not accept the “populations” you speak of as races. Yes, it’s vague. We agree there; both the minimalist and populationist concepts are vague concepts, but races can be delineated using the conditions and arguments from both concepts.
“But they didn’t…not to a biologically significant degree. The FsT values show this, the cophentic correlations show this…”
Sure they were; before 1492, the races were pretty much isolated, by geography which also impeded racial interbreeding.
“…and this has only become more evident as civilization has progressed, with earthbound distances between populations, thanks to technology, presenting zero isolation at this point.”
There are now social boundaries to racial interbreeding, and there’s no evidence that ‘race’ is going away anytime soon:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/06/how-much-admixture-on-social-isolation-the-one-drop-rule-and-the-maintenance-of-races/
“You admitted that the definition for reproductive isolation was not the ‘typical definition.’ So it can’t be biological vocabulary when it uses a different definition.”
“As has become clear, my use of the terms ‘reproductive isolation’ and ‘isolating mechanisms’ deviates from standard biological practice. … I have recast the notions of reproductive isolation and isolating mechanism to make them applicable to populationist race. This recasting illustrates that the introduction of the populationist concept of race involves a rethinking of what race is—a rethinking that makes the concept suitable for application to Homo sapiens.” (Hardimon, 2017: 105)
‘Phenotype’, ‘gene’, ‘reproductive isolation’ are all scientific terms; thus the populationist race concept uses biological language.
“I mean an entity created abstractly that may or may not correspond to some tangible real quality and may or may not be useful that, nevertheless, does not meet scientific classification standards.”
Other conceptions of race (Spencer’s Blumenbachian Partitions, for instance) take race to be both a social and biological construct. (We can discuss that later if you’d like, after Hardimon’s).
The terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ are social terms, they denote socialraces, I agree. That’s discussing a different concept though so we can discuss that later. I’d make the claim that ‘socialraces’ would fit into ‘biological races’ pretty well.
Interesting post from Gregory Cochran about Fst:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/fixation-index/
Europeans (a subset of the Caucasian race) and sub-Saharan Africans have the same Fst distance as North American wolves and coyotes therefore Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans are different species?
Wrong inference.
Different subspecies, rather.
What’s the correct inference?
ala hegel…
the past is never past.
the way things are is the way things have been…
the mountain is not suspended in air.
La Montagne se repose sur l’histoire.
quoth google translate.
robespierre knew…
AND knows.
the ultimate monsterbator.
Sorry…
But that guy looks like a homo…
We don’t know whether Robespierre was gay . There are many reasons to think he dates many women when he was a young lawyer but he died as a bachelor at 36. He was a SJW with blood on his hands …
Who cares?
I was being a little silly with the post above. But I have read speculation that Robespierre was possibly gay or bi. Doesnt seem too far of a stretch with his 18th century proto-“SJW” tendencies.