Humans have not stopped evolving, and races biologically exist

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, it is generally a good point, but it is a pitfall in the context in which the Flynn effect was brought up in this discussion, as the claim that "By every objective, measurable criterion whites have always tended to perform better intellectually than blacks" still stands. I take the Flynn effect to be vital information for understanding the nature of IQ generally, but it hasn't lent much hope to the pure environmentalist perspective of the racial IQ gap, as the gap has not changed. If it is your position that living standards account for the racial IQ gap, then we can actually put that position to the test. What part of the racial difference in "living standards" is responsible? Income? Diet? Educational quality? We can control for each of those things, and, for each of them and more, none of them seem to have a significant effect on the racial IQ gap, not even a partial effect. James Flynn co-discovered the eponymous Flynn effect. He called the situation "something of a massacre," with Arthur Jensen holding the blade, in Flynn's book, "Race, IQ and Jensen."

 

[repoman]

I think that as far as evolution acting on the branches of human of the exodus from Africa there are longer and shorter time scales.

For humans shortly after the split that was a long time ago and a very small environmental pressure would have a noticeable effect eventually.

For things in the last ~10-12k years (the first appreciable settlements) the time before now was much shorter so it would require a stronger selection for traits to get a real differences between races. And this is what could have happened, it requires different skills to live not just in a different climate, but also in growing and more complicated settlements. Planning and cooperation and even abstract thoughts are more challenged.

But these skills are more mental overhead and why have them if not needed. That energy could be used for other things. Kind of like having the genes for lot of muscles can be cool for fighting and attracting a mate, but the energy requirements of them could have been negative in the past compared to having lean genes.

 

[repoman]

How many genes (and their alleles) do people think may be responsible for the variation in human intelligence?

By this I mostly mean raw analytical power, ability to memorize, planning ability, impulse control, empathy, visual reasoning and so on.

If someone has a lot of horsepower mentally, but has shit planning skills or impulse control then it may not do them much good.

But would the gene that gives "poor impulse control" in a modern classroom in the past sometimes give an advantage against a "good impulse control" gene? Is that a "spontaneity", or "fast social reaction" gene?

 

[Bomb#20]

For things in the last ~10-12k years (the first appreciable settlements) the time before now was much shorter so it would require a stronger selection for traits to get a real differences between races. And this is what could have happened, it requires different skills to live not just in a different climate, but also in growing and more complicated settlements. Planning and cooperation and even abstract thoughts are more challenged.

But these skills are more mental overhead and why have them if not needed. That energy could be used for other things. Kind of like having the genes for lot of muscles can be cool for fighting and attracting a mate, but the energy requirements of them could have been negative in the past compared to having lean genes.

Funny story about that. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of natural selection, made precisely the same argument. Natural selection directed only by the tendency to achieve greater fitness to the local environment will not generate more mental power than is necessary given the local lifestyle. Observing that the primitive New Guinean savages he'd lived among were every bit as intelligent as civilized Europeans, he deduced that God had intervened to direct the evolution of the human mind.

(Of course, neither of your respective conclusions from your shared argument would be inescapable, were it to turn out that surviving in a hunting-and-gathering culture is more mentally challenging than it looks.)

 

[repoman]

However, New Guinea natives are descendants of people who had to make long voyages to get there.

And yeah, hunter/gathering probably is pretty challenging. I would think they have an encyclopedic knowledge of their terrain.

My packrat nature is probably a holdover from hunter gatherer ancestors. When I get some time off and inclination I will do a massive possessions purge.

 

[fromderinside]

My head aches from the wheel spinning those who think race is important try over and over when their current 'breakthrough' has failed.

Consider the following two quotes from "BRIEF ON RACE AND GENETIC DETERMINISM" http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=72

There is no evidence to suggest that the small number of markers isolated in some groups implicates for differences beyond mutations for a handful of diseases or outward physical appearance, yet the use of race in genetics is often stretched to areas where it does not belong.

But even within the parameters that define the tiny biological differences between groups, race is not useful as a proxy to judge these differences. This is true for a couple of reasons. First, a person’s apparent race often does not reflect the genetic diversity represented in their biology. For example, though they are of one race, many African-Americans have descendants from Europe and the Americas as well as Central and West Africa. Their “race” is considered to be African-American, but their ancestry is mixed. Ancestry refers to an individual’s line of descent that can be traced through ancestors back to a geographic region(s) of origin. A given individual may have ancestors who all originated from the same region, but this is rare. Further, each individual’s ancestry is different and it is possible for individuals from the same “race” to have very different ancestries. What you see isn’t always what you get. Second, it is possible, even likely, that a given individual will not know the extent to which they are genetically mixed. Medical advice and clinical studies based on information about “race” from self-reports or by judgments about “race” made by doctors and researchers, therefore, can only lead to erroneous conclusions.

Meaning not a chance for race to be a quantifiable useful construct for perceived difference analysis.

Yet, when this is accepted they (the remnants of Galton based eugenic minded 'scholars') go to:

Current research in medicine and forensics, and improved techniques in genealogical analysis promise hefty future profits. We are beginning once again to view race as a “holy grail” in the search for truth, hoping that it will yield answers to our biology and ultimately our identity. There is a general sentiment that studying the connection between race and genetics this time around will not produce the sinister effects of the past, but is this true? We may be trudging down an erroneous path, one that will lead to false notions of biological differences and the delay of efforts to remediate inequalities whose origins lie mainly in environmental and social factors. By spending billions in research on race-based approaches to medicine and criminal identification we are furthering the concept that race is real.

My head really hurts now.

So what I'm going to do is take the following advice:

It is our position that, despite claims to scientific neutrality, we do in fact live in a racialized society, and prevalent notions of group differences will drive interpretations of racialized data, no matter what labels are used, or what additional variables are included. Persisting in constructing scientific arguments based on highly ambiguous variables that are clearly laden with dubious social meanings, is of deep concern. It is not innocuous to tolerate the logical fallacy of using race to infer genetic background (Krieger, 2005). This unjustifiably promotes the notion that scientific research verifies the existence of biological differences between racial/ethnic groups. Genetic explanations for racial differences in health may in effect create a conceptual barrier to developing integrated research about social inequality and health (Cooper, Kaufman & Ward, 2003; Sankar et al., 2004), and add additional burdens of stigma and negative identity for already marginalized groups (Lee et al., 2001). As Shields and co-authors (2005) have observed, despite claims to the contrary, with these problems unaddressed, this line of research does not hold great promise for addressing health disparities:

From: The Ambiguous Meanings of the Racial/Ethnic Categories Routinely used in Human Genetics Research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2213883/

And reject results of any study claiming human racial genetic differences unless it constrains itself to well defined confirmed gene differences that demonstrably apply across all members of the claimed 'race' or ethnic group.

 

[ApostateAbe]

fromderinside, the Council for Responsible Genetics is an ideological organization, and the scientific perspectives among its members are slanted toward that political ideology. It is best not to treat such organizations as authorities on matters of science, common as that treatment may be. Races (a.k.a. subspecies or breeds) exist among all species of widespread geographic dispersion, the human species is no exception, races of humans have the genetic correlations to show it, and these correlations have empirical significance. The spectral qualities of races exist among all such species. The Council for Responsible Genetics is not anti-scientific (neither are young-Earth creationists nor global-warming denialists), but their political agenda roughly approximates it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Ernst Mayr in 2002 wrote a paper titled, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." It clears the air on the concept of race from the perspective of evolutionary biology (races are a necessary element of evolutionary theory). You can find the text online here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

But it is easier to read the PDF of the article. You can send me a private message with your email address, and I will send it to you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

How many genes (and their alleles) do people think may be responsible for the variation in human intelligence?

By this I mostly mean raw analytical power, ability to memorize, planning ability, impulse control, empathy, visual reasoning and so on.

If someone has a lot of horsepower mentally, but has shit planning skills or impulse control then it may not do them much good.

But would the gene that gives "poor impulse control" in a modern classroom in the past sometimes give an advantage against a "good impulse control" gene? Is that a "spontaneity", or "fast social reaction" gene?

It is not known how many genetic variations are responsible for variations in IQ, but I believe the best guess is on the order of thousands. The vastly polygenic nature of IQ variations means that it is very difficult to identify any one of those genes, as it requires a sample size of at least tens of thousands, with both IQ scores and genetic readings.

 

[Bomb#20]

However, New Guinea natives are descendants of people who had to make long voyages to get there.

Which their ancestors had the brainpower to accomplish, even though those ancestors weren't themselves descended from people with the skills to grow crops and live in more complicated settlements. So evidently hunting and gathering had been quite challenging enough to select for planning and cooperation and abstract thought.

"Maybe I'm not the greatest hunter." - Jack Black
"Or gatherer!" - Michael Cera

My packrat nature is probably a holdover from hunter gatherer ancestors. When I get some time off and inclination I will do a massive possessions purge.

You and me both.

 

[fromderinside]

fromderinside, the Council for Responsible Genetics is an ideological organization, and the scientific perspectives among its members are slanted toward that political ideology. It is best not to treat such organizations as authorities on matters of science, common as that treatment may be. Races (a.k.a. subspecies or breeds) exist among all species of widespread geographic dispersion, the human species is no exception, races of humans have the genetic correlations to show it, and these correlations have empirical significance. The spectral qualities of races exist among all such species. The Council for Responsible Genetics is not anti-scientific (neither are young-Earth creationists nor global-warming denialists), but their political agenda roughly approximates it.

Your comment is fair for the first pair of quotes. Your commentary is misplaced about my view on race and ethnicity as relevant to genetic research. I subscribe to standard definitions and criteria. I just don't subscribe to the notion that the levels of variation among human groups is substantial enough and well defined enough for meaningful scientific research that will stand the test of time. This all goes back to Lewontin, 1972, who found greater diversity within groups than between groups of humans.

If an isolate in a northern Baltic area can typify a group (Jews) instead of a local isolate of said group then there might be something to write home about. It doesn't. Jews predate the northern isolate by 3000 years which throws a monkey wrench into the notion that  Tay-Sachs is a Jewish trait for instance.

My last quote is from an article that explored the precision of definitions of race and ethnicity used by researchers who attributed significant findings relating to their definitions of race and ethnicity. They have no association with the advocacy group. Their research is based on their survey of persons doing research in the area. These persons presented definitions that cannot be justified by the data they were reporting. Notice I take elements of the last quote as my position.

This article and my post relates to whether the notion of race as used in human racial and ethnic genetic research can be supported with the small variations found among humans and with the wide range of definitions used to specify race and ethnicity.

 

[Togo]

Ernst Mayr in 2002 wrote a paper titled, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." It clears the air on the concept of race from the perspective of evolutionary biology (races are a necessary element of evolutionary theory). You can find the text online here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Well, sort of. It burns a lot of straw men, but it also reinforces the points that critics of 'genetic races' consistently make - that race is a phenological grouping, and not a genetic one, that within-group differences are weaker that between-group differences, and that race is not an emperically useful predictor of individual performance.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ernst Mayr in 2002 wrote a paper titled, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." It clears the air on the concept of race from the perspective of evolutionary biology (races are a necessary element of evolutionary theory). You can find the text online here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Well, sort of. It burns a lot of straw men, but it also reinforces the points that critics of 'genetic races' consistently make - that race is a phenological grouping, and not a genetic one...

In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species."
...
The evolutionary literature explains why there are geographic races. Every local population of a species has its own gene pool with its own mutations and errors of sampling. And every population is subject to selection by the local environment.
...
A human race consists of the descendants of a once-isolated geographical population primarily adapted for the environmental conditions of their original home country.
...
When comparing one race with another, we do find genes that are on the whole specific for certain populations. Many individuals of Native American descent have the Diego blood group factors, and people of Jewish descent have a propensity for Tay-Sachs disease. Some of these characteristics are virtually diagnostic, but most are merely quantitative...
...
There is also no scientific evidence known to me that the genetic differences we do discover among the human races have any influence at all on personality.
...
One can conclude from these observations that although there are certain genetic differences between races, there is no genetic evidence whatsoever to justify the uncomplimentary evaluation that members of one race have sometimes made of members of other races. There simply is no biological basis for racism.
...
Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes.

I'm not quite seeing how you could read Mayr as saying race is not a genetic grouping.

 

[Juma]

Well, sort of. It burns a lot of straw men, but it also reinforces the points that critics of 'genetic races' consistently make - that race is a phenological grouping, and not a genetic one...

In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species."
...
The evolutionary literature explains why there are geographic races. Every local population of a species has its own gene pool with its own mutations and errors of sampling. And every population is subject to selection by the local environment.
...
A human race consists of the descendants of a once-isolated geographical population primarily adapted for the environmental conditions of their original home country.
...
When comparing one race with another, we do find genes that are on the whole specific for certain populations. Many individuals of Native American descent have the Diego blood group factors, and people of Jewish descent have a propensity for Tay-Sachs disease. Some of these characteristics are virtually diagnostic, but most are merely quantitative...
...
There is also no scientific evidence known to me that the genetic differences we do discover among the human races have any influence at all on personality.
...
One can conclude from these observations that although there are certain genetic differences between races, there is no genetic evidence whatsoever to justify the uncomplimentary evaluation that members of one race have sometimes made of members of other races. There simply is no biological basis for racism.
...
Geographical groups of humans, what biologists call races, tend to differ from each other in mean differences and sometimes even in specific single genes.

I'm not quite seeing how you could read Mayr as saying race is not a genetic grouping.

So thay he actually writes "phenotyoical grouping" is not clear to you?

 

[Togo]

So thay he actually writes "phenotyoical grouping" is not clear to you?

As Juma points out, Phenotype and Genotype are alternatives bases for classification. He clearly states that these are phenotypical groups, and then goes on to suggest that some of thes groups may have a few traits that indicate some kind of common genetic basis. But the groups are not genetic groups, they are phenotypical groups. Races are phenotypes - they're based on appearance.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Ernst Mayr in 2002 wrote a paper titled, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality." It clears the air on the concept of race from the perspective of evolutionary biology (races are a necessary element of evolutionary theory). You can find the text online here:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Well, sort of. It burns a lot of straw men, but it also reinforces the points that critics of 'genetic races' consistently make - that race is a phenological grouping, and not a genetic one, that within-group differences are weaker that between-group differences, and that race is not an emperically useful predictor of individual performance.

I agree with most of those points, though, regardless of what Mayr thinks or what you think he thinks, I think the facts and theory are plain that race is both phenotypic and genotypic.

 

[Togo]

Well, sort of. It burns a lot of straw men, but it also reinforces the points that critics of 'genetic races' consistently make - that race is a phenological grouping, and not a genetic one, that within-group differences are weaker that between-group differences, and that race is not an emperically useful predictor of individual performance.

I agree with most of those points, though, regardless of what Mayr thinks or what you think he thinks, I think the facts and theory are plain that race is both phenotypic and genotypic.

I know you do. And I think that the facts come out disagreeing with that position.

It's worth reviewing the principle objections to what you believe is plain.

For instance, the point about comparing between groups to within group is a statistical point about what makes a coherant grouping. You can draw a circle around any set of data points and call it a group. And in any such group you'll tend to find some genes are more common than others, whether that groups has coherant features, or whether it was chosen entirely at random. So when social scientists look at a group, one of the things they look for is some kind of unifying correlate - something that tends to be true of members within the group but not of members outside the group. The best measure of this is a comparison between differences within the group and differences between that group and other groups. If the differences within the group are very large, and the differences between groups are compartively small, then the feature you are measuring is not a defining factor of group membership - that is that people, considering that factor alone, do not in fact fall into measureable groupings. It's not a complaint about the weakeness of the correlation, or the unusefulness of the measure - it's a statistical finding that for that feature, people do not in fact fall into these groupings.

 

[Bomb#20]

So thay he actually writes "phenotyoical grouping" is not clear to you?

As Juma points out, Phenotype and Genotype are alternatives bases for classification.

And that's where it breaks down. You guys evidently take it for granted that phenotypical groupings and genetic groupings are mutually exclusive. No doubt you think you have good reason to believe this; but that's beside the point. You are arguing that Mayr says race isn't a genetic grouping. What reason do you have to think Mayr thinks phenotypical groupings and genetic groupings are mutually exclusive?

He clearly states that these are phenotypical groups, and then goes on to suggest that some of thes groups may have a few traits that indicate some kind of common genetic basis.

That is a reading colored by the preconceptions you're bringing to bear. He clearly states that each of these groups definitely has a common genetic basis: "A human race consists of the descendants of a once-isolated geographical population primarily adapted for the environmental conditions of their original home country." That is all it takes to be a genetic group. Look at what the word "genetic" means. "1. of or relating to genes or heredity. 2. of or relating to origin; arising from a common origin." He's pointing out a race's common origin; and he's describing race in terms of a hereditary property. To be the descendant of any particular once-isolated geographical population is a property you inherit from your biological parents.

When Mayr defines a race as "differing taxonomically from other populations of that species", that means he's defining it as a genetic group. Biology stopped going in for non-genetic taxonomic groups like "tree" and "herbivore" and "two-stamened" back when Darwin convinced the rest of the profession that evolution was real. Polyphyletic taxonomic groups like "insectivora" persisted only by being mistaken for genetic groups; when biologists find out one of these isn't a genetic group they stop using it for taxonomy.

But the groups are not genetic groups, they are phenotypical groups. Races are phenotypes - they're based on appearance.

The whole reason phenotypes group naturally into the groups we observe is because they're also genetic groups -- the descendants of once-isolated geographical populations. Race identification used to be based on appearance, because that was all anthropologists had to go on and they did the best they could; but from the get-go that was understood to be a procedure for recognizing relatedness. Now that we can measure genetic distance, who the heck still classifies Polynesians as Caucasoid?

 

[Juma]

Now that we can measure genetic distance, [...jada jada...]

You already know that genetic distance is way differently distributed than phenytype distance so that grouping by phenotype is usable in no way a indication that grouping by genotype is useful.

So. Stop jiddering and start show real evidens for your point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Now that we can measure genetic distance, [...jada jada...]

You already know that genetic distance is way differently distributed than phenytype distance

I already know no such thing, since I'm unaware of any objective measure of phenotype distance.

so that grouping by phenotype is usable in no way a indication that grouping by genotype is useful.

Did I say anything one way or the other about whether grouping is useful? It would be lovely if people stopped caring about one another's race.

So. Stop jiddering

Did I say something you found insulting? If so, I apologize.

and start show real evidens for your point.

Been there, done that. Mayr didn't say race is not a genetic grouping. The man's own words make it perfectly clear that he agrees with ApostateAbe that race is both phenotypic and genetic, to anyone who reads without colored lenses. That was my point.

If you mean real evidence for some other point, what point are you talking about? If you're asking me to show real evidence that the usually recognized races actually are natural genetic groups, that's out of place in the Social Science forum. If it's important to you, start a thread in Natural Science.