Looking for some authortative Bio Sources

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: CSMR
But that is true also of socially-determined race, that is social inculcation into a race. That is not clear cut either.

Exactly, but in order for a classification system to work it MUST be clear cut; there can't be any ambiguity.
As I have repeatedly pointed out no one (including me) is saying that there aren't genetic traits that can be traced back to a person?s ethnic origin. However, the fact that the concept of "race" is so fuzzy makes it virtually useless in biology.

E.g. the definition of a mammal is that it is warm blooded creature which nourishes its young with milk; this means that the platypus is mammal despite the fact that it lays eggs.
Hence, in this case the fact that there is a well-defined classification system means that the platypus falls into a definite category despite the fact that it appears "ambiguous" at first sight.
As far as I know there is no way to define "race" in a similarly non-ambiguous way and that is precisely the reason why the concept is not useful in science.

 

[chusteczka]

species - noun

1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology - the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic -
   1. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
   2. the set of things within one of these classes.
4. Horticulture pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety: a species rose; a species gladiolus.

race - noun

1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. Anthropology -
   1. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
   2. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
   3. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
3. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
4. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
5. Zoology - a variety; subspecies.
6. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.

breed - noun

1. Genetics - a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans.
2. lineage; stock; strain: She comes from a fine breed of people.
3. sort; kind; group: Scholars are a quiet breed.

phenotype - noun

1. 1. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
   2. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

"Race" has no basis in biology, but "race" has very real social implications. In other words, the concept of race in understanding human biological variation has been basically abandoned by biological anthropologists (because it's scientifically worthless), but the concept of race is still used to categorize people (i.e. profiling, stereotyping, etc.).

This does not, however, imply there are no real biological differences between people - of course not - unless you're talking about twins, who are basically clones with no or very, very few genetic differences. In fact, differences/variations between people are very interesting as they give clues to our evolutionary origins, and the history of groups of modern people (i.e. were the first Americans from Asia? Where'd the Hawaiians come from?). They also make us realize how closely we're all related - the differences aren't very much even if they make skin color & other external appearances seem pronounced.

Basically, race implies that there are sharp distinctions or gradations between groups of people when it comes to their appearances/characters. This is simply not the case. Human variation is always clinal in nature, with various characters present where they have been selected for, or simply as a result of natural population history (in the case of non-functional or marginally functional characters).

For example, sickle cell anemia is thought of as a 'black' disease in the US, but the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia is also found throughout the Mediterranean, in people who are not at all 'black' - it's just that in America the majority of folks with sickle cell disease are black. As another example, a single nucleotide substitution is responsible for the two major classes of ear wax type in people (haha, yes, this has been researched) - 'black' & 'white' people tend to have one type (moist - it fluoresces under uv light!), while 'yellow' & 'red' people tend to have another (dryer, flakier). I suppose if our overriding concern was with ear wax rather than skin color, Europeans & Africans would've been lumped together. The groups you make really just depend on the traits you're looking at.

Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" is an excellent and very accessible book on the subject. If you're really curious, use Google Scholar to look up articles on the subject by C. Loring Brace, who along with Ashley Montagu, really championed a non-racist approach to studying human biology. He recently wrote a fine book on the subject, Race is a Four-Letter Word, which I highly recommend. Stephen Gould's Mismeasure of Man is more accessible, and probably easier to find. It's also a very thorough refutation of the notion of race as biologically valid - it also destroys the validity of IQ tests (reification much?) & refuted the arguments made in "The Bell Curve" before that book was even written. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel also makes it impossible to believe that the achievements of European & Asian societies have anything to do with inherent biological superiority.

For excellent overviews of the genetics of human diversity, check the homepage of the International HapMap Project (www.hapmap.org). Particularly relevant HapMap link. If you're really interested in this subject, feel free to PM me.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: byosys
As per the title, my English TA is stubborn about something she knows nothing about (Biology). She read one book from way back when (i.e. before DNA) and now has the idea that race is an entirely social construct firmly entrenched into her mind.

Now, I know that DNA differences make a black persons skin black and Asians have different facial structures than the majority of whites, but I don't have any authoritative sources to back that up. I'm looking for articles with complexity all over the map (I'm going to need more than 2 or 3 since my TA is pretty stubborn) but most importantly, scholarly so she can't argue the legitimacy with me.

Thanks

PS Please let's not get into "just agree with her and get a good grade". Her thinking is completely wrong, and destroys a fair bit my paper.

yep, she's mostly right. at the DNA level, the differences occur mostly between human and mouse, or dog, or whatever. your genes don't give a ****** about color. We all have the same genes; the difference is which ones are "turned on" at certain points in development to make us individuals.

Yeah, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc all have different physical features. Genetically, however, those features are no more distinguishable between 2 races than they are between 2 individuals of the same race.

Don't assume she has no idea what she's talking about just b/c she's an English TA. I was an English major, and I work in Genetics (also Bio major).

Hit up some Stephen J. Gould. He makes people feel smart.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: byosys
As per the title, my English TA is stubborn about something she knows nothing about (Biology). She read one book from way back when (i.e. before DNA) and now has the idea that race is an entirely social construct firmly entrenched into her mind.

Now, I know that DNA differences make a black persons skin black and Asians have different facial structures than the majority of whites, but I don't have any authoritative sources to back that up. I'm looking for articles with complexity all over the map (I'm going to need more than 2 or 3 since my TA is pretty stubborn) but most importantly, scholarly so she can't argue the legitimacy with me.

Thanks

PS Please let's not get into "just agree with her and get a good grade". Her thinking is completely wrong, and destroys a fair bit my paper.

yep, she's mostly right. at the DNA level, the differences occur mostly between human and mouse, or dog, or whatever. your genes don't give a ****** about color. We all have the same genes; the difference is which ones are "turned on" at certain points in development to make us individuals.

Yeah, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc all have different physical features. Genetically, however, those features are no more distinguishable between 2 races than they are between 2 individuals of the same race.

Don't assume she has no idea what she's talking about just b/c she's an English TA. I was an English major, and I work in Genetics (also Bio major).

Hit up some Stephen J. Gould. He makes people feel smart.

Actually, I just heard on NPR that the difference from human to human genetically is MUCH higher than originally though. They used to think that 99.9% of our genes were the same; now they only think that 90% of our genes are the same.

Any for anyone wondering if races have differences, go look up lacose intolerance. 99% of black people are nontolerant, but a very good portion of white people are. Why? Not because of social factors And any biologist will tell you it's not only physical attributes that are passed on genetically, but personality traits are aswell.

I listened in on a Bio class about a week ago and the Professor was talking about how he's a "leaner." Meaning when he was talking, he naturally got to a wall and leaned. His grandfather was aswell, and they talk in his family about how it skips generations, just like red hair does in a lot of families.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: byosys
As per the title, my English TA is stubborn about something she knows nothing about (Biology). She read one book from way back when (i.e. before DNA) and now has the idea that race is an entirely social construct firmly entrenched into her mind.

Now, I know that DNA differences make a black persons skin black and Asians have different facial structures than the majority of whites, but I don't have any authoritative sources to back that up. I'm looking for articles with complexity all over the map (I'm going to need more than 2 or 3 since my TA is pretty stubborn) but most importantly, scholarly so she can't argue the legitimacy with me.

Thanks

PS Please let's not get into "just agree with her and get a good grade". Her thinking is completely wrong, and destroys a fair bit my paper.

yep, she's mostly right. at the DNA level, the differences occur mostly between human and mouse, or dog, or whatever. your genes don't give a ****** about color. We all have the same genes; the difference is which ones are "turned on" at certain points in development to make us individuals.

Yeah, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc all have different physical features. Genetically, however, those features are no more distinguishable between 2 races than they are between 2 individuals of the same race.

Don't assume she has no idea what she's talking about just b/c she's an English TA. I was an English major, and I work in Genetics (also Bio major).

Hit up some Stephen J. Gould. He makes people feel smart.

Actually, I just heard on NPR that the difference from human to human genetically is MUCH higher than originally though. They used to think that 99.9% of our genes were the same; now they only think that 90% of our genes are the same.

Any for anyone wondering if races have differences, go look up lacose intolerance. 99% of black people are nontolerant, but a very good portion of white people are. Why? Not because of social factors And any biologist will tell you it's not only physical attributes that are passed on genetically, but personality traits are aswell.

I listened in on a Bio class about a week ago and the Professor was talking about how he's a "leaner." Meaning when he was talking, he naturally got to a wall and leaned. His grandfather was aswell, and they talk in his family about how it skips generations, just like red hair does in a lot of families.

that info isn't exactly relevant here; and the speculation of human-to-human similarity is just that--speculation.

the report has been misenterpreted by the media (shocker!). The genes are still there; this hasn't changed (yet). the difference is in an update the formerly dissproved "one gene. one protein theory." it is now known that one gene can potentially code for several variants of a particular protein. this doesn't change our genetic similarities; as the research suggests it is the variation in protein that makes us individually unique.
this new study suggests that an individual gene can code for even more protein variations than previously thought.

 

[imported_Seer]

I think the strongest argument for a scientific race is that of the predisposition of certain "races" to the same diseases, regardless of upbringing. This would seem to define race as people who share (more) similar genes.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seer
I think the strongest argument for a scientific race is that of the predisposition of certain "races" to the same diseases, regardless of upbringing. This would seem to define race as people who share (more) similar genes.

This makes sense, and there are those characteristics (mostly physical) that seem to hint toward genetic roles in race selection.

The issue though, is that at a genetic level, the similarities among individuals within a race, and those between two different races, are statistically insignificant. You can infer that someone may be of African descent by finding a trait for sickle cell during a screen. But, it's not hard and fast....and of course, we are all of African descent. Most of the molecular data that we have collected shows this.

What a forensics test will tell you is not whether someone is Asian or Caucasian, but whether or not they are related to someone else.

 

[sao123]

To address the issue at hand...
what characteristics would you use to define a race?

skin? eyes? hair? size? weight? language? accent?

Race is more akin to nationality... more than genetics.


I'd like to point out that... according to the OP's logic...
Blue eyes & blond hair, should be a different race than brown eyes and brown hair.

 

[imported_Seer]

Originally posted by: sao123

I'd like to point out that... according to the OP's logic...
Blue eyes & blond hair, should be a different race than brown eyes and brown hair.

Yes, ever heard of the aryan race? (Edit Disclaimer: this was meant to be halfway sarcastic, not racist. Plus, someone else says this isn't actually race; I'm inclined to agree)

Originally posted by: sao123

Race is more akin to nationality... more than genetics.

No, you're thinking of ethnicity

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Seer

Originally posted by: sao123

I'd like to point out that... according to the OP's logic...
Blue eyes & blond hair, should be a different race than brown eyes and brown hair.

Yes, ever heard of the aryan race?

Originally posted by: sao123

Race is more akin to nationality... more than genetics.

No, you're thinking of ethnicity

you still havent answered my question...

lets make a class

class race
{
public:
// fill in the members

private:
// fill in the members

};


What are the set of tangible defining traits that make up race?

 

[f95toli]

There is not and never has been an "aryan race". According to what is essentially racist history the aryans were suppose to have been a large Indo-European tribe that founded an empire in northern India over 3000 years ago. The reason why I write "racist history" is that AFAIK the only reason the existance of the "Aryans" was postulated was that when Christian missionaries came to India they could not belive that non-European people could have created such a rich culture; hence they invented the aryans to "solve" that problem.

Blonde hair and blue eyes is more common in northern Europe then elsewhere but there has never been a "northern european race".

 

[imported_Seer]

f95toli: thanks, I was just throwing that out there because it seemed to fit.

sao123: Obviously race isn't a black or white (har har) issue. Your analogy doesn't fit, because in a program you're either in the class or you're not. Race would be more akin to a set of biases, and cannot be looked at on an individual basis. A better analogy would be electron orbitals, which are defined to be the region that an electron inhabits only 90% of time. An electron being a person and an orbital a race, chances are you will find the eelctron here or there, and chances are that japanese people will have black hair. But maybe not. The discussion then circles back to your question, but from a different angle.

Disclaimer: I am assuming, for simplicity, that humans all share roughly 90% of their genes in common.

We could define race to be the genes / average person you would get if you averaged an entire nation.* A person could be said to belong to a certain race if he shared a majority of characteristics with that person. Lets say 99% of genes. We could do this for America, and we could come up with an American race.

*This would have to disclude people who had recently immigrated or who do not trace a majority of their ancestry inside that country. Also, instead of using countries, we could use

However, we might find that our American and German stereotypes to be themselves 99% similar. Thus, we would combine these, and all other nationalities that are 99% similar to these, and come up with the typical European race.

Finally, we would be left with race as a group of long-term regionally isolated* people people who share a majority of common genes.

*This would seem to discount America from being part of the European race due to their separation.. However, America has not been separate long enough from Europe for the effects of this isolation to fully wear off. Also, America might have been a bad choice because it has so many different groups of people from all over the world. But, again, the key is long-term, and I think you get the idea.

You cannot just take two people and say because they are more similar to each other than others of their own "race" that race doesn't exist. You have to look at the group of people, and notice the probabilities of certain things occuring.

Update: I just read f95toli's post about Iceland. I swear I didn't mean to copy you!!

More info:

Originally posted by: f95toli
Blonde hair and blue eyes is more common in northern Europe then elsewhere but there has never been a "northern european race".

I've never said that race has been defined correctly. Maybe there is a northern european race.

You're right, race IS more than skin color, although this can be an easy determinant.

 

[imported_Seer]

whoops

 

[Fallen Kell]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

....and of course, we are all of African descent. Most of the molecular data that we have collected shows this....

Actually this very statement has come into question lately. There have been several studies that suggest that humans actually evolved in Asia Minor due to the speed of the population expansion across the world. Others suggest that the previous direct ancestors to humans may have evolved into humans in multiple places at multiple times.

 

[gsellis]

It has been described above, but the cliff notes are:

We use the term race to incorrectly describe what is a phenotype. Race is a social construct and misused when describing phenotypes.

 

[byosys]

I forgot about this thread mostly due to the fact that I decided to just rewrite my paper rather than fight my teacher when it matters (ie my grade). Race is certainly not well defined. The arguments both sides have brought up are interesting, and I'd like to add the following.

Given that there is no accepted definition for race and that the concept of race has no place in science because of it's lack of definition, there are most certainly physical differences between different groups of people. If there wasn't, then Asians wouldn't have a harder time breaking down alcohol and certain drugs would not work differently on different races. These are two well defined differences and there are several more. To say that "Drug X works better on Jeremy because his parents/grandparents/great^N grandparents grew up in Africa" is absurd.

As for race being genetic - if there are differences between populations that originated from difference areas, how can there *not* a (genetic or otherwise) difference between said populations, even if we can't detect it yet? But saying someone is black/white/asian/what ever simply because of social constructs (as opposed to biological differences) is absurd.