Help re: evolution

[mpok1519]

Its a well known fact in the anthropological world....but, here, lemmie see if I can drag something up....

I get my facts from class rather than the internet, so, bear with me if it takes a while.

 

[Gracchus]

Can you provide evidence (such as a scientific paper or something) that states that the genetic differences in a single race are more than the genetic differences between races?

My immediate response to such a claim is doubt, but if you can provide a link or something from an established source, I'd like to read it.

What you may be thinking of is the fact that various races across the world are more alike than some humans of African descent, because all races of the world outside of Africa arose from a specific area within Africa. That, however, does not imply that all people within a race are less alike than with people of a different race. I hear that the populations within some east-Asian countries are the most homogeneous on the planet.

I believe that is correct.

 

[lostaquarium]

Can you provide evidence (such as a scientific paper or something) that states that the genetic differences in a single race are less than the genetic differences between races?

What mpok1519 actually said was that genetic differences in a single race are more than the genetic differences between races.

 

[mpok1519]

yes; genetic variation within a race happens more often than variation between races.

this is a common anthropological fact.

 

[R3quiem]

What mpok1519 actually said was that genetic differences in a single race are more than the genetic differences between races.

I corrected the typo. My post was written understanding what he meant, but when I rephrased it, I made that typo. The rest of the post is consistent, and he apparently understood my skeptic question regardless of my typo. Thanks.

 

[lostaquarium]

Oh, ok

I agree with mpok.

The key paper in this field seems to be this:

Templeton AR. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 632-650

Don't know if this link works: JSTOR

 

[Gracchus]

yes; genetic variation within a race happens more often than variation between races.

this is a common anthropological fact.

"Common anthropological fact" is not a citation. Surely you can at least cite your textbook.

 

[R3quiem]

Oh, ok

I agree with mpok.

The key paper in this field seems to be this:

Templeton AR. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 100, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 632-650

Don't know if this link works: JSTOR

Thank you for the link (yes, it does work).

Now, unless I missed something, the paper does not say that genetic variation happens more within a race than compared between multiple races.

That paper is claiming that race is not a synonym with subspecies (to which I agree), and that "race" is not a particularly valid scientific term and that it is rarely used in that field.

Claiming that races are not subspecies is not the same thing as saying that people within a race are more genetically dissimilar than people of various races.

So, I still would like a link to a piece of evidence which states that genetic differences within a race are more so than genetic differences between races.

 

[lostaquarium]

Thank you for the link (yes, it does work).

Now, unless I missed something, the paper does not say that genetic variation happens more within a race than compared between multiple races.

That paper is claiming that race is not a synonym with subspecies (to which I agree), and that "race" is not a particularly valid scientific term and that it is rarely used in that field.

Claiming that races are not subspecies is not the same thing as saying that people within a race are more genetically dissimilar than people of various races.

What he's saying is that there's no such thing as either race or subspecies, from a genetic point of view. Genetics vary so much within each race, that there's no significant additional variation between races. (Which I think is what mpok means, though there might be some room for misinterpretation.)

From his conclusion:

"Because of the extensive evidence for genetic interchange through population movements and recurrent gene flow going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is only one evolutionary lineage of humanity and there are no subspecies or races under either the traditional or phylogenetic definition."

 

[mpok1519]

"Common anthropological fact" is not a citation. Surely you can at least cite your textbook.

not when i just sold it back! lol also, it wasnt a lesson within the course text.

 

[R3quiem]

What he's saying is that there's no such thing as either race or subspecies, from a genetic point of view. Genetics vary so much within each race, that there's no significant additional variation between races. (Which I think is what mpok means, though there might be some room for misinterpretation.)

From his conclusion:

"Because of the extensive evidence for genetic interchange through population movements and recurrent gene flow going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is only one evolutionary lineage of humanity and there are no subspecies or races under either the traditional or phylogenetic definition."

First of all, claiming that there is no additional variations between races than within a single race is very different from claiming that genetic differences within a race are more so than between races. The latter was his claim, not the former, to which you are now subscribing.

Secondly, I agree with his paper that we are of one evolutionary lineage and that there are no subspecies. "Race" is a complex term. But, I would argue that two people of Irish descent on average share more genetic similarity than between an Irish man and a Korean man.

 

[mpok1519]

What he's saying is that there's no such thing as either race or subspecies, from a genetic point of view. Genetics vary so much within each race, that there's no significant additional variation between races. (Which I think is what mpok means, though there might be some room for misinterpretation.)

From his conclusion:

"Because of the extensive evidence for genetic interchange through population movements and recurrent gene flow going back at least hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is only one evolutionary lineage of humanity and there are no subspecies or races under either the traditional or phylogenetic definition."

No, you said what I was trying to say perfectly; race is a cultural construct which has no true meaning. Race was created, and should be uncreated.

 

[R3quiem]

yes; genetic variation within a race happens more often than variation between races.

this is a common anthropological fact.

not when i just sold it back! lol also, it wasnt a lesson within the course text.

If it is a common anthropological fact, then it should be easy to find somewhere. If it's not easy to find, then by definition, it is not a common fact.

I'm not saying your claim was definitely wrong, but I do think it was inaccurate, and will continue to do so unless you can provide reasonable evidence.

 

[mpok1519]

First of all, claiming that there is no additional variations between races than within a single race is very different from claiming that genetic differences within a race are more so than between races. The latter was his claim, not the former, to which you are now subscribing.

Secondly, I agree with his paper that we are of one evolutionary lineage and that there are no subspecies. "Race" is a complex term. But, I would argue that two people of Irish descent on average share more genetic similarity than between an Irish man and a Korean man.

the studies I've seen show that the two irish men would have more differences in their dna than when compared to a korean man. Sure its possible they have more genetic similarity, but its even more possible that they have more genetic differences between them than one and a korean.

 

[R3quiem]

the studies I've seen show that the two irish men would have more differences in their dna than when compared to a korean man.

Ok, and I am saying again that I am highly skeptical of that claim and doubt that it is true. You may be correct, but I would really like to see evidence for it. If you can find respectable evidence for it, then I will agree.

 

[lostaquarium]

First of all, claiming that there is no additional variations between races than within a single race is very different from claiming that genetic differences within a race are more so than between races. The latter was his claim, not the former, to which you are now subscribing.

Secondly, I agree with his paper that we are of one evolutionary lineage and that there are no subspecies. "Race" is a complex term. But, I would argue that two people of Irish descent on average share more genetic similarity than between an Irish man and a Korean man.

I think we actually agree, and you're just picking up on bits that were poorly expressed.

Just to clarify, this is sort-of what we all mean:

View attachment untitled.bmp

Populations aren't significantly different from each other. Two people (red) from one population are often more different to each other than they are to someone from another population (blue).

 

[Gracchus]

Well, I could agree that if there is such a thing as race, the historically defined races are inadequately precise. I know I can't throw a stone at anyone without hitting a family member.

In any case, race is a concept useful only to bigots.

 

[mpok1519]

Ok, and I am saying again that I am highly skeptical of that claim and doubt that it is true. You may be correct, but I would really like to see evidence for it. If you can find respectable evidence for it, then I will agree.

I'm having trouble finding things that arent numerous charts and graphs of nucleotide similarities with a conclusion thats in english. lol but, trust me, the anthropologists agree, there is more genetic diversity within a racial cetegory than there is without.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm having trouble finding things that arent numerous charts and graphs of nucleotide similarities with a conclusion thats in english. lol but, trust me, the anthropologists agree, there is more genetic diversity within a racial cetegory than there is without.

What you were trying to say then, is that racial categories are nonsense?

 

[mpok1519]

yes, racial cetegorizing is nonsense. Its a construct of cultural mores and norms rather than any real taxonomic biological classification.

Race, essentially, does not, and should not, exist.