It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.
5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.
Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
OK, this guy explains it quite well.
Divisions are important when it comes to kidney transplant.
Divisions are irrelevant when it comes to fairness.
So basically race is real and racism is wrong.
I guess I still need help as I can only find stuff that agrees with me.
4.1. Genetic Differentiation Among Human Populations
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.
4.2. Do Races Exist in Humans Using fst Thresholds?
Assuming for now that the five major geographical groups are the meaningful populations, do these groups satisfy the quantitative threshold definition of race? Table 2 shows the AMOVA results for these five human groups, along with a comparable analysis of the three races of chimpanzees that satisfy both the threshold and lineage definitions of race. Table 2 shows how the genetic variation is partitioned into differences among individuals within the same local population, differences between local populations within the same “race”, and between “races”. Table 2 confirms the reality of race in chimpanzees using the threshold definition, as 30.1% of the genetic variation is found in the among-race component, a result expected from the pairwise analysis shown in Table 1. In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major “races” of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation – well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals (93.2%).
The threshold definition also requires sharp genetic boundaries between the “races.” Figure 2 shows a plot of the pairwise fst values of humans as a function of geographical distance (Ramachandran et al., 2005). As can be seen, the pairwise fst values increase smoothly with increasing geographical distance (in this case based on waypoints to minimize travel across oceans and seas). There are no indications of the discontinuities expected when sharp geographical boundaries of genetic differentiation exist. A more detailed analysis reveals that the spatial patterns of human genetic variation are explained well by a series of long-range migrations and population founder events coupled with gene flow with isolation-by-distance (Hunley, Healy, & Long, 2009). The gene flow arising from long-range migrations and isolation-by-distance has obscured any sharp boundaries that may have temporarily existed after the founder events (Figure 2) as well as has reduced the quantitative amount of genetic differentiation. Consequently, neither aspect of the threshold definition is satisfied; there are no sharp boundaries separating human populations, and the degree of genetic differentiation among human groups, even at the continental level, is extremely low. Using the threshold definition, there are no races in humans.
Scientists should take seriously what their work communicates to the general public. If they applied the most straightforward concept of science, the idea that hypotheses should be tested whenever possible, then human evolutionary trees such as Figure 4 would disappear and would be replaced by trellises that emphasize the genetic interconnections among all humans on this planet. Humans are an amazingly diverse species, but this diversity is not due to a finite number of subtypes or races. Rather, the vast majority of human genetic diversity reflects local adaptations and, most of all, our individual uniqueness.
9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.
originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
OK guys, This is the closest we're gonna get to an agreement I think.
The concept of race has been misused and misunderstood for generations.
What we thought of as "race" was incorrect and due to new discoveries what we identify as race is now understood.
As racial diversity is a product of evolution there is a wide spectrum.
It is a human construct how races are assigned on this wide spectrum as there is potential for infinite divisions.
Since race is what you say it is, it's meaningless scientifically.
I've changed my mind.
I wouldn't have accepted race is scientifically meaningless earlier.
My views on how we should perceive the human construct of race hasn't really changed however.
I'm in favour of infinite divisions of that human construct to illustrate the absurdity.
Not taking on that absurd task is equally valid however(probably moreso).
Doing a halfassed job and only having 5 or even 1,000 divisions is wrong and can only mislead.
Took a while but this is what this forums about.
Unless I still haven't got it in which case it's time to give up
As for a definition of racism, I use this: racism is believing that one's own race is somehow superior to other races. Or the obverse, that other races are somehow inferior to one's own.