Racists standing up for accurate science

[ApostateAbe]

The above image is a screenshot of a recent Facebook post by David Duke, which passed on a meme common among the Alt Right. The politics of David Duke truly is, in Clinton's word, deplorable. And, on this matter of biology, the sarcastic argument of David Duke is entirely correct. The mainstream left drifted to an absurd extreme long ago, which gave David Duke an opportunity to appear rational. Biological races are absolutely essential to evolutionary biology, evolutionary divergence would not happen without such races, and human races are no exception. Races happen whenever a species diverges geographically, as their frequencies of genetic variants diverge along with it. It is a fundamental principle of biogeography and population genetics. There is continuity, overlap and arbitrary divisions among races? There is more variation within than between each race? A member of one race shares almost all genes with a member of another race? Yes, yes, and yes: all of these points are true for races of ANY OTHER SPECIES with geographic and genetic divergence. David Duke merely echoed a point made by the renowned evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 2002, in his article, "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality," and he was right: "Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals." Mayr said that the people who deny the biology of human races are "obviously ignorant of modern biology." The science of Mayr was right, but Mayr did NOT share with Duke the inference that, therefore, different human races shouldn't be allowed to live together. But, Mayr is now dead, and now only two types of people are publicly defending the accurate science:

1. Racists.
2. "Racists."

 

[untermensche]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

The racial genetic diversity for both human races and dog breeds can be quantified and compared on a single scale: F_st. Among dog breeds, the F_st is estimated to be 0.33 (Parker et al, "Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog," 2004). For major human races F_st is estimated to be 0.12 (Wright, Evolution and the genetics of populations, volume 4: variability within and among natural populations, 1978). This means that the genetic variation among dog breeds is about two and a half times greater than the level of genetic variation among human races, probably owing to the shorter generation length and less frequent interbreeding among dog breeds. For races to biologically exist with absolute certainty, the F_st need only be significantly above 0, though races may still exist with an F_st equal to zero, as only a single genetic variant is required, and it would wash out on the F_st scale. This would be not an issue for human races, with an F_st of 0.12. This value would mean that the human species may be a quarter on its way to speciation, as bonobos and chimpanzees have an F_st of only 0.5 between them (Fischer et al, "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes," 2006). There is no standard threshold for "diversity in phenotype" to define races, but there is such a standard threshold for subspecies: the 75% rule. The 75% rule states: if 75% of a subset of a species has the same set of morphological traits at the exclusion of 99% of the remainder of the species, then you can have a subspecies. It does not necessarily take much time to produce subspecies, as, theoretically, it would require only one generation after a narrow bottleneck. Major human races most plainly meet this threshold. Forensic anthropologists can accurately identify the race of individuals with 80% to 90% accuracy, from the skull alone. But, human races are called races and not subspecies merely by custom, as Sewall Wright wrote on the first page of his chapter on human races of the cited book.

 

[untermensche]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

The racial genetic diversity for both human races and dog breeds can be quantified and compared on a single scale: F_st. Among dog breeds, the F_st is estimated to be 0.33 (Parker et al, "Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog," 2004). For major human races F_st is estimated to be 0.12 (Wright, Evolution and the genetics of populations, volume 4: variability within and among natural populations, 1978). This means that the genetic variation among dog breeds is about two and a half times greater than the level of genetic variation among human races, probably owing to the shorter generation length and less frequent interbreeding among dog breeds. For races to biologically exist with absolute certainty, the F_st need only be significantly above 0, though races may still exist with an F_st equal to zero, as only a single genetic variant is required, and it would wash out on the F_st scale. This would be not an issue for human races, with an F_st of 0.12. This value would mean that the human species may be a quarter on its way to speciation, as bonobos and chimpanzees have an F_st of only 0.5 between them (Fischer et al, "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes," 2006). There is no standard threshold for "diversity in phenotype" to define races, but there is such a standard threshold for subspecies: the 75% rule. The 75% rule states: if 75% of a subset of a species has the same set of morphological traits at the exclusion of 99% of the remainder of the species, then you can have a subspecies. It does not necessarily take much time to produce subspecies, as, theoretically, it would require only one generation after a narrow bottleneck. Major human races most plainly meet this threshold. Forensic anthropologists can accurately identify the race of individuals with 80% to 90% accuracy, from the skull alone. But, human races are called races and not subspecies merely by custom, as Sewall Wright wrote on the first page of his chapter on human races of the cited book.

Which chapter is Wright's chapter on human races?

Here's the chapters from his book.

 

[untermensche]

A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Since humans have no issue with mating across the so-called "races" they don't fit the definition of subspecies.

Even the most racist slave owners regularly mated with their slaves.

 

[Bronzeage]

Deplorable is a good word for it.

 

[iolo]

A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Since humans have no issue with mating across the so-called "races" they don't fit the definition of subspecies.

Even the most racist slave owners regularly mated with their slaves.

Whereas the Neanderthal contribution to our racist posters was difficult and marginal! Sorry - not really playing speciesist - in many ways they seem to have been superior to Sapiens anyway, so they can't really have contributed to the racists!

 

[ApostateAbe]

The racial genetic diversity for both human races and dog breeds can be quantified and compared on a single scale: F_st. Among dog breeds, the F_st is estimated to be 0.33 (Parker et al, "Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog," 2004). For major human races F_st is estimated to be 0.12 (Wright, Evolution and the genetics of populations, volume 4: variability within and among natural populations, 1978). This means that the genetic variation among dog breeds is about two and a half times greater than the level of genetic variation among human races, probably owing to the shorter generation length and less frequent interbreeding among dog breeds. For races to biologically exist with absolute certainty, the F_st need only be significantly above 0, though races may still exist with an F_st equal to zero, as only a single genetic variant is required, and it would wash out on the F_st scale. This would be not an issue for human races, with an F_st of 0.12. This value would mean that the human species may be a quarter on its way to speciation, as bonobos and chimpanzees have an F_st of only 0.5 between them (Fischer et al, "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes," 2006). There is no standard threshold for "diversity in phenotype" to define races, but there is such a standard threshold for subspecies: the 75% rule. The 75% rule states: if 75% of a subset of a species has the same set of morphological traits at the exclusion of 99% of the remainder of the species, then you can have a subspecies. It does not necessarily take much time to produce subspecies, as, theoretically, it would require only one generation after a narrow bottleneck. Major human races most plainly meet this threshold. Forensic anthropologists can accurately identify the race of individuals with 80% to 90% accuracy, from the skull alone. But, human races are called races and not subspecies merely by custom, as Sewall Wright wrote on the first page of his chapter on human races of the cited book.

Which chapter is Wright's chapter on human races?

Here's the chapters from his book.

View attachment 8097

The chapter about races is Chapter 10, titled, "Racial Differentiation in Mankind." The table of contents you posted seems to be a different volume, but i cited Volume 4.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Which chapter is Wright's chapter on human races?

Here's the chapters from his book.

View attachment 8097

The chapter about races is Chapter 10, titled, "Racial Differentiation in Mankind." The table of contents you posted seems to be a different volume, but i cited Volume 4.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, basically because we come in different shapes and colors we can't live in harmony together?

 

[untermensche]

The chapter about races is Chapter 10, titled, "Racial Differentiation in Mankind." The table of contents you posted seems to be a different volume, but i cited Volume 4.

That is right from Amazon.

Volume 4.

But he did say it. I just wanted to see if I could find it in context.

But he only uses visible phenotype variation to make the distinction, not anything deep like cognitive abilities.

But this is speciation. You get divergent subspecies and the process continues until you get full fledged species.

I suppose we could just say subspecies instead of race but it wouldn't change anything.

But if we just used visible phenotype variation we would probably end up with thousands of subspecies.

Are people with Italian heritage the same subspecies as people with Irish heritage? They can many times easily be distinguished.

But none of this supports any racist idea that humans vary in something like cognitive ability (not a visible phenotype variation) by groups.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The chapter about races is Chapter 10, titled, "Racial Differentiation in Mankind." The table of contents you posted seems to be a different volume, but i cited Volume 4.

That is right from Amazon.

Volume 4.

But he did say it. I just wanted to see if I could find it in context.

But he only uses visible phenotype variation to make the distinction, not anything deep like cognitive abilities.

But this is speciation. You get divergent subspecies and the process continues until you get full fledged species.

I suppose we could just say subspecies instead of race but it wouldn't change anything.

But if we just used visible phenotype variation we would probably end up with thousands of subspecies.

Are people with Italian heritage the same subspecies as people with Irish heritage? They can many times be easily be distinguished.

But none of this supports any racist idea that humans vary in something like cognitive ability (not a visible phenotype variation) by groups.

The table of contents you posted was from Volume 3, not Volume 4. The proposed subspecies division between Italians and Irish would probably fail the 75% rule, so it can be the major races, less the minor races. Intelligence differences are another issue. It is typical to judge biology by such tangential political fears -- that is what explicitly underlies the academic denial of races -- but that isn't the way science should be done. It is handing David Duke the winning argument on the matter of taxonomy.

 

[untermensche]

...But, human races are called races and not subspecies merely by custom, as Sewall Wright wrote on the first page of his chapter on human races of the cited book...

He didn't say they were not called subspecies merely by custom.

He said:

It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones. The occurrence of a few conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to widely different environmental conditions, does not necessarily mean much genetic difference in general.

This is the opposite of what racists like David Duke say.

 

[untermensche]

The table of contents you posted was from Volume 3, not Volume 4. The proposed subspecies division between Italians and Irish would probably fail the 75% rule, so it can be the major races, less the minor races. Intelligence differences are another issue. It is typical to judge biology by such tangential political fears -- that is what explicitly underlies the academic denial of races -- but that isn't the way science should be done. It is handing David Duke the winning argument on the matter of taxonomy.

"would probably"?

What kind of science is that?

 

[ApostateAbe]

He didn't say they were not called subspecies merely by custom.

He said:

It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones. The occurrence of a few conspicuous differences, probably due to selection for adaptation to widely different environmental conditions, does not necessarily mean much genetic difference in general.

This is the opposite of what racists like David Duke say.

You seem to be misunderstanding both Wright and standard taxonomic practice. The standard criterion for judging subspecies is the 75% rule. If you read the previous paragraph, Wright estimated the value among human races to be far above that minimum: 100%. It is all about morphology. The genetic variation (Fst), however, does not have anything to do with criteria for judging subspecies. Subspecies can have extremely low Fst, much lower than 0.12, and it would be no reason to claim they are not subspecies.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The table of contents you posted was from Volume 3, not Volume 4. The proposed subspecies division between Italians and Irish would probably fail the 75% rule, so it can be the major races, less the minor races. Intelligence differences are another issue. It is typical to judge biology by such tangential political fears -- that is what explicitly underlies the academic denial of races -- but that isn't the way science should be done. It is handing David Duke the winning argument on the matter of taxonomy.

"would probably"?

What kind of science is that?

Absolutely all science.

 

[untermensche]

"would probably"?

What kind of science is that?

Absolutely all science.

So science is passing off wild guesses as facts?

 

[untermensche]

You seem to be misunderstanding both Wright and standard taxonomic practice. The standard criterion for judging subspecies is the 75% rule. If you read the previous paragraph, Wright estimated the value among human races to be far above that minimum: 100%. It is all about morphology. The genetic variation (Fst), however, does not have anything to do with criteria for judging subspecies. Subspecies can have extremely low Fst, much lower than 0.12, and it would be no reason to claim they are not subspecies.

I think you misunderstand him. Thus your insertion of a "merely" into it.

He is not saying there is anything wrong with calling them races and nothing is gained by calling them subspecies.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Absolutely all science.

So science is passing off wild guesses as facts?

Not so much a blind guess as a guess informed by a body of background knowledge. You seemed to depend on the opposite guess, as though Italians and Irish are most certainly 75% distinguishable, but i won't accuse you of ghastly science.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You seem to be misunderstanding both Wright and standard taxonomic practice. The standard criterion for judging subspecies is the 75% rule. If you read the previous paragraph, Wright estimated the value among human races to be far above that minimum: 100%. It is all about morphology. The genetic variation (Fst), however, does not have anything to do with criteria for judging subspecies. Subspecies can have extremely low Fst, much lower than 0.12, and it would be no reason to claim they are not subspecies.

I think you misunderstand him. Thus your insertion of a "merely" into it.

He is not saying there is anything wrong with calling them races and nothing is gained by calling them subspecies.

That's a plausible interpretation. He wasn't clear.