• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are racial differences obvious and important, or nonexistent?

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
Are racial differences real or nonexistent?

Race:

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Are there any differences between human races that are important and real, or are all the differences imaginary/constructed..... or nonexistent?
 
As far as I'm concerned, if a male and female can produce viable, fertile offspring between them, they're the same race. Most "racial" distinctions fall on the level of red cats vs. black cats vs. calicos vs. siamese etc ad nauseum. In the absolute sense, I look on race as species.

I don't think you have the correct options in your poll, so I'm not going to take part in it. It's roughly the equivalent of asking the question, "do you walk to school, or do you carry your lunch?"

Regards;
Beanbag
 
Beanbag said:
As far as I'm concerned, if a male and female can produce viable, fertile offspring between them, they're the same race. Most "racial" distinctions fall on the level of red cats vs. black cats vs. calicos vs. siamese etc ad nauseum. In the absolute sense, I look on race as species.
Click to expand...

But there are identifiable differences between subgroups of the human species. While I don't argue for any kind of different treatment or inherent superiority/inferiority, there are cultural issues surrounding it, and to refuse to discuss it, or use words that give you language to discuss it, seems counter-productive.
 
gnome said:
But there are identifiable differences between subgroups of the human species. While I don't argue for any kind of different treatment or inherent superiority/inferiority, there are cultural issues surrounding it, and to refuse to discuss it, or use words that give you language to discuss it, seems counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Hasn't this been refuted on a genetic level. Wasn't it found that individual genetic variations were so much more significant than any variations correlated with cultural groupings that the idea of race was dropped by geneticists?

Edited for abysmal spelling.
 
Exactly. If by 'race' we refer to 'species', there is one species - human. There are a variety of distinctive characteristics that originated in different places, but in general any member with one set of characteristics can breed with any other member of any other set of characteristics - thus, one race.

Thus, there are no 'racial differences' - only regional differences, which homogenize as interregional breeding continues.

Ideally, say in ten or so generations, the Human Race will finally homogenize completely, thereby resulting in a superior race after all.
 
It's been noted that there are more genetic variations within various ethnic/regional groups than there are between different groups.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Exactly. If by 'race' we refer to 'species', there is one species - human. There are a variety of distinctive characteristics that originated in different places, but in general any member with one set of characteristics can breed with any other member of any other set of characteristics - thus, one race.
Click to expand...
But "race" and "species" aren't interchangable. Maybe "race" and "subspecies".
By "subspecies" we mean (this is my crude definition, and probably a poor one) a breeding population that has been separated from other populations long enough for some genetic differences to develop, but whose members could still breed with those of the other populations of the species if they came into contact with them.
If the separation lasts long enough, the two (or more) populations may become distinct species, but at the subspecies (race) level they haven't yet.
In human populations the level of genetic difference is very small, but that doesn't mean it's non-existant.

Thus, there are no 'racial differences' - only regional differences, which homogenize as interregional breeding continues.
Click to expand...
If by "racial differences" we mean genetically inherited differences between one population and another, then yes there are. Here's one test of whether they can be called "regional differences" instead, as though they weren't genetic in nature: take a couple from population A and have it trade places with a couple from population B. Which region's characteristics will the children of those couples be seen to have?

Of course, I know you're not suggesting the above, but I can't make out what you mean by those genetically inherited differences between one population and another being anything but "racial" differences. If you agree that they are genetic differences that are typical of one population rather than another, and which arose through natural selection, then any other disagreement between us is just semantics.

I agree that the different races are interbreeding and the distinctness of one group or another is being lost.
And I certainly won't suggest that the differences between races are very large. Mostly they are surface differences, but that doesn't mean they don't have any real importance at times. I'm white, my girlfriend is asian - when we go for a day out in the sun I burn bad without strong sunscreen, she doesn't need the stuff much, but will sometimes use SPF 10. That is a physical difference, and a measurable one.
It's true that the diversity within populations is more important than the diversity amoung populations, but that doesn't mean that the diversity amoung populations is non-existant.
Nor am I suggesting that one race is in any way "better" than another. There is absolutely no reason to believe that. Average intelligence, for instance, seems to be the same across the board, and for good reason. The same selection pressures for intelligence have existed for all human populations ever since they diverged. Dito for all the things that make us human - care for children and family members, group interactions, language skills, etc.
Besides, the populations didn't diverge that long ago on an evolutionary time scale, and any differences that did acrue would be only superficial, unless there was a massive selection presure on one group that the others didn't experience, which wasn't the case. But that doesn't mean that none of those differences can be of any importance at all.

Ideally, say in ten or so generations, the Human Race will finally homogenize completely, thereby resulting in a superior race after all.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree that a completely homogenized human species consisting of only one race will be superior. But it'll probably be alot more fair. People won't be tempted to discrimation based on the colour of each other's skin. As though that said anything about the quality of their minds.
 
Thread title:
Are racial differences obvious and important, or nonexistent?
------------------------------------------------------------
Header:
Are there any important differences between races?
---------------------------------------------------------
Poll options:
There are racial differences that are real.
Racial differences are nonexistent.
---------------------------------------------------------


These ways of putting the question are not equivalent. The thread title offers a false dilemma: racial differences may exist but be quite useless to us (think of star-signs, which are as " real", objective and easily ascertainable as birthdays, and quite hopeless as a guide to other traits).

The header assumes that it is possible to sort humans into races. Perhaps it is; certainly the attempt remains popular. But the groups that do the sorting cannot agree among themselves ( are all " whites "of the same race, or all "orientals"?) , so we need to know which sorting principles are being used.

The poll options seem to be genuinely exhaustive, but until we know what "race" means, it is not clear what the question amounts to.

The opening post offers a genetic gloss on "race":

"A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

Fair enough. However, there is now the problem of sorting humans into genetic groups. Which are they? Here, I am happy to be educated by the posters who know much more about genetics than I do.
Until that happens, I shan't be voting, as the question isn't clear.
 
So we aren't using 'race' in the term 'species' but in the term 'subspecies' - in which case, we have innumerable races today. Purebreeds, hybrids, cross-breeds, every possible combination exists today, I think. Most humans are 'mutts', essentially. Very, very few can claim any form of so-called 'racial purity' back more than a couple of generations.

As such, are racial differences important? Only to recognize their value within a given individual... or, in other words, all racial differences should be judged on an individual and unbiased basis.

For example, if I were putting together a project in the sweltering jungles of South America, and not forced to maintain a diverse crew, I would undoubtably select workers among the local populace, as well as those sharing similar traits of heat tolerance, sun tolerance, etc.

But frankly, I don't think racial differences are at all important as a group.
 
Opinions?

The human population consists of approximately 30 major maternal lineages and 18 major paternal lineages. These major lineages are called haplogroups.

A person’s maternal ancestry is traced by mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA for short. Both men and women possess mtDNA, but only women pass it on to their children.

So we all inherit our mtDNAs from our mothers, but not from our fathers. Your mother inherited it from her mother, who inherited it from hers, and so on back through time. Therefore, mtDNA traces an unbroken maternal line back through time for generation upon generation far further back than any written record.

Research at Oxford University and elsewhere over many years has shown that all of our maternal lines are connected at some time in the past and that these connections can be traced by reading mtDNA. One striking finding was that people tended to cluster into a small number of groups, which could be defined by the precise sequence of their mtDNA.

In native Europeans, for example, there were seven such groups, among Native Americans there were four, among Japanese people there were nine, and so on. Each of these groups, by an astounding yet inescapable logic, traced back to just one woman, the common maternal ancestor of everyone in her group, or clan.

For our MatriLineâ„¢ service, we read a section of your mtDNA, about 400 base pairs long, and compare its precise sequence to the many thousands of others from all over the world that we have in our database. That way we can not only give you an exact readout of your DNA sequence, but also discover to which of the clans you belong, and from which ancestral mother you are descended.

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/your-maternal.html
 
jay gw said:
Research at Oxford University and elsewhere over many years has shown that all of our maternal lines are connected at some time in the past and that these connections can be traced by reading mtDNA. One striking finding was that people tended to cluster into a small number of groups, which could be defined by the precise sequence of their mtDNA.
Click to expand...
Mitochondrial DNA doesn't tell you all that much of importance when it comes to race, though. For instance, someone might fit into one of the Japanese 'clans' you describe even though only one of their 8 grandparents was of japanese ancestry. The rest could be chinese, korean, scottish or russian. It would just have to be the maternal grandmother that was a member of the clan.
It's also possible to have no DNA other than the mitochondrial DNA in common with the distant mitochondrial common ancestor. Here's an example of why:
Common Ancestor M has a daughter. 50% of her DNA comes from her mother. She has a daughter, 50% of who's DNA comes from her. On down the generations until we get to 1%, 0.1%, etc. But any given gene either is or is not passed on. Sometimes a daughter will have 51% of her genes from the father and 49% from the mother, etc. Of course this effect will be damped by the fact that relatives marry, and thus some of the the common ancestor's DNA might be in the father as well, but that isn't enough to defeat the argument. The mitochondrial DNA will always be passed on down the female-female line, but there is no need to believe that the any of the rest will have necesarrily followed.

So, what am I saying? Just because people cluster into groups who share a common mitochondrial ancestor, that doesn't suggest that they necessarily have any other genetic traits in common. I would figure they'd be more likely to, but it's not necessarily true.

Also, even though Common Ancestor M down the female only line is a common ancestor to everyone in the group, there are plenty of other common ancestors. Probably many of those living durring her time, and probably quite a few who lived after her.
And some of these might (I don't know) be common ancestors to not only all of the members the 'clan' but also to members of other 'clans' as well.
 
jay gw,
You said:
-------------------------------------------------------------
" One striking finding was that people tended to cluster into a small number of groups, which could be defined by the precise sequence of their mtDNA.

In native Europeans, for example, there were seven such groups, among Native Americans there were four, among Japanese people there were nine, and so on. Each of these groups, by an astounding yet inescapable logic, traced back to just one woman, the common maternal ancestor of everyone in her group, or clan."
------------------------------------------------------------------


I had said:
---------------------------------------------------------
"I am happy to be educated by the posters who know much more about genetics than I do."
------------------------------------------------------------------


My happiness is almost complete. You have sorted us into genetically distinguishable groups. However, I am still puzzled to say what follows from this sorting. Can you help?
 
I'd say their are, and I think it's jumping the biologically-correct gun to say there arn't. If there wern't, I wouldn't have been hearing about how the Ontario police are using racial profiling for the last 3 years. I don't think you can really argue that there arn't important social racial differences in humans. At best I guess I'd call it "obvious group traits" instead of race, but it seems to me most people are willing to incorrectly use race.

I suppose what I mean is they are constructed differences, but still important and real, even if the biological difference is trivial.
 
Beanbag said:
Most "racial" distinctions fall on the level of red cats vs. black cats vs. calicos vs. siamese etc ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


What about cultural differences or behavioural differences? I wonder where those come from. It surprises me how different some groups of 'homo-sapiens' really are and yet how same they are. Actually it doesn't surprise me as much as it amazes me.. but technical jargon aside, I think there is a certain level of global consciousness we can achieve individually and of course together that seems to go beyond the solely physical effects of DNA. I just think that's pretty interesting considering the physical nature of so many 'races' are so different as well.
 
Roboramma said:
Mitochondrial DNA doesn't tell you all that much of importance when it comes to race, though. For instance, someone might fit into one of the Japanese 'clans' you describe even though only one of their 8 grandparents was of japanese ancestry. The rest could be chinese, korean, scottish or russian. It would just have to be the maternal grandmother that was a member of the clan.
It's also possible to have no DNA other than the mitochondrial DNA in common with the distant mitochondrial common ancestor. Here's an example of why:
Common Ancestor M has a daughter. 50% of her DNA comes from her mother. She has a daughter, 50% of who's DNA comes from her. On down the generations until we get to 1%, 0.1%, etc. But any given gene either is or is not passed on. Sometimes a daughter will have 51% of her genes from the father and 49% from the mother, etc. Of course this effect will be damped by the fact that relatives marry, and thus some of the the common ancestor's DNA might be in the father as well, but that isn't enough to defeat the argument. The mitochondrial DNA will always be passed on down the female-female line, but there is no need to believe that the any of the rest will have necesarrily followed.

So, what am I saying? Just because people cluster into groups who share a common mitochondrial ancestor, that doesn't suggest that they necessarily have any other genetic traits in common. I would figure they'd be more likely to, but it's not necessarily true.

Also, even though Common Ancestor M down the female only line is a common ancestor to everyone in the group, there are plenty of other common ancestors. Probably many of those living durring her time, and probably quite a few who lived after her.
And some of these might (I don't know) be common ancestors to not only all of the members the 'clan' but also to members of other 'clans' as well.
Click to expand...

I would say that DNA is actually very remarkably similar in most of the 'human race' percentage-wise considering the comlexity of the differences we perceive in our social cultures, which although are at some level very similar (ie. most people don't believe in murder for example) vary so much... that it seems almost impossible to understand the reasons for compatability and incompatability of certain social structures on a genetic level - in genetics all the code would become meaningless essentially once you start asking questions like why does this society believe in God and this one believes in physics while another believes they have a certain level of control over parts of their experience of reality and others still who don't believe anything in particular about much of anything, but have a passion for art or music, etc. Still, there always seems to be an undeniable and strong similarity between us in some areas.

I am actually be inclined to believe that there are aspects of our existence that can't be sufficiently 'quantified' against eachother to be defined entirely accurately by our genetic code, which are more accurately definable using words.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Ideally, say in ten or so generations, the Human Race will finally homogenize completely, thereby resulting in a superior race after all.
Click to expand...

It's interesting you say 'idealy' in light of the fact that nature does seem to try and 'better itself' and organisms with genetic deficiencies tend to be isolated or eliminated all together.
 
Filip Sandor said:
I would say that DNA is actually very remarkably similar in most of the 'human race' percentage-wise considering the comlexity of the differences we perceive in our social cultures, which although are at some level very similar (ie. most people don't believe in murder for example) vary so much...
Click to expand...
Definitely. Actually I think I read somewhere that homo sapiens have less genetic diversity that most other animal species. Don't quote me on that, though. ;)
When I talk about a daughter having 50% of her mother's DNA, I only mean she shares approximately 50% of the genes that are variable in the population with her mother. Or something like that. Of course what's common between all humans, or all members of their population, will be common between mother and daughter as well.

that it seems almost impossible to understand the reasons for compatability and incompatability of certain social structures on a genetic level - in genetics all the code would become meaningless essentially once you start asking questions like why does this society believe in God and this one believes in physics while another believes they have a certain level of control over parts of their experience of reality and others still who don't believe anything in particular about much of anything, but have a passion for art or music, etc. Still, there always seems to be an undeniable and strong similarity between us in some areas.
Click to expand...
Definitely there are strong similarites amoung cultures. I really like Donald E. Brown's list of human universals. It's interesting to see the things that are constant across all cultures.
I agree that most if not all differences between cultures are not genetic in origin. To me the explanation seems simple:
The cultures diverged a long time ago (on a cultural but not evolutionary timescale) and over time different rituals, belief systems, taboos, etc. developed.
One test to see what differences are genetic and what are cultural would be to take say a chinese child adopted by korean parents and see if that child were more ammenable to the belief systems practiced in China or those practiced in Korea. I think we can agree on the outcome.

Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. Human nature fits with all of the different cultures on earth - if it didn't they wouldn't have come to exist in the first place. Some things are universal across cultures while others are... variations on a theme, or independantly discovered ideas, or whatever, but they still all mesh enough with human nature that they can be accepted by the individuals that make up the culture.
Everyone born can assimilate any of the different cultures - though some might have predispositions that would do better in one than another. When someone is born in a particular culture, the process of childhood is in part assimilating that culture, and it's customs, etc. are learned. It later becomes hard to assimilate, or even understand, other cultures, because the one you are born into is like second nature. Language might be seen similarly. Most people who learn a second language have an accent, but this is certainly not genetic.
 
Filip Sandor said:


What about cultural differences or behavioural differences? I wonder where those come from. It surprises me how different some groups of 'homo-sapiens' really are and yet how same they are. Actually it doesn't surprise me as much as it amazes me.. but technical jargon aside, I think there is a certain level of global consciousness we can achieve individually and of course together that seems to go beyond the solely physical effects of DNA. I just think that's pretty interesting considering the physical nature of so many 'races' are so different as well. [/B]
Click to expand...

I would tend to group any cultural or behavioural commonalities as due to the environment a person was raised in -- in short, learned behaviour. Each society has certain common norms that are considered acceptable. Closed or isolated societies might develop certain standards of behaviour that would be foreign to another society. For example, some religious sects find polygamy to be just fine. The Spanish were disturbed to find the Middle Americans practiced human sacrifice (though in the light of religious inquisitions in Europe, I find this a bit hypocritical).

Would you consider religious practice a racial trait, or something that was learned or impressed upon the members of a given society? That's probably one of the best examples of learned herd behaviour that I can think of at 6AM.

Regards;
Beanbag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom