Is race biological, or important to you?

Post Reply New Topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29
The fact that human groups interbreed, and have done so for thousands of years, precludes their biological definition as 'races.'

I'm majoring in Anthropology and one of the big discussions i've had with one of my professors ( a forensic anthropologist) was just about this topic.

In her class she was telling us there is no such thing as race, that is a social construct, etc... just like the textbook said. I do not subscribe to that idea.

The best comparison I can make is with dogs. All dogs are the same species yet they are wildly different... each 'breed' is a 'race' for all purposes. The skeletal difference between dog breeds is significant. A trained person can pick up a dog skull at random and tell you what breed it comes from... just like a forensic anthropologist can pick up a human skull and tell you if it belonged to an asian or caucasian and such.

Each human 'breed' had its own adaptations to the environment and this is why we look different and why their skulls and bones have minor differences. Genetically it can also be determined what 'breed' of human a blood sample comes from.

So yes, I believe race is biological. However those differences, just like in dogs, do not make one human type distinctly different from another in performance or capabilities...its all just extensive adaptations to their local regions. Unfortunately socially and culturally that difference has been abused and carries that negative connotation today.

Important to me? Not sure in what sense you mean that question. Only time I've found it useful is on drinking games... never bet on the asian guy for chances are he will be on the floor while the other guy is just getting buzzed

Race and species are both somewhat soft terms. They are an attempt to strictly classify (officially or unofficially) an analog process. But that there are differences between populations is just a fact. Evolution couldnt function otherwise. The exact nature and scope of those differences is still unknown in many cases. But it's all of a subtle statistical variety, not X-men type variety.

Some % of the West African population *may* have a speed advantage but the genetic evidence isnt there yet. A certain % of the population from a particular region of Italy have a gene that helps them fight heart disease. Tibetans seem to have a genetic makeup that let's them live at higher altitudes. Over the next 50 years they will identify more of these kinds of unique genes in other places. But it will deal with population subsets within "races" most likely.

But that's not the strict definition of species either. Grizzly Bears and Polar Bears are different species with very specific genetic adaptions beyond just their color. Yet they can breed and produce viable offspring in the wild. But they are generally reproductively isolated as they don't meet very often in the wild so they are still different species. But you can see that the breeding angle is a little arbitrary in this case. It's an attempt to label an analog process. Similarly Neanderthals were very different from us and yet could breed with us.

Human populations do have some genetic differences and we arent in a position to say what they all might be. We only know a few. But I agree that they will tend to be minor statistical differences. The media will play them up as they are discovered so it's best if people expect them and can place the information in context.

Grizzly and Polar bears don't have airplanes and don't meet often. Otherwise they might. Travel potential is an odd component to have in something that people consider to be a solid biological definition. That's they only point with that. These labels are somewhat arbitrary. It's all the same process.

While all humans are of the same species, we are most certainly broken up into different races and in turn cultures.
The key point is does it matter to you? and if so in what way?
I myself am as 'mongrel' as one can get in an incredibly multi-racial/cultural society, observing and allowing for racial/cultural difference is essential to navigating society harmoniously as I need to make allowances for peoples sensitivities just as they need to in regard mine. This could be described as 'positive racism' and is a far cry fro the 'negative racism' of unfair predjudicial behaviour, hate speak, hate crime etc.
The difference is in intent and outcome, merely observing difference is not inherently wrong.

peace j

I thought if you interbreed different breeds of dogs the resulting mixed breed is often more intelligent, healthier (lacks the health issues of the purebreds), and lives longer... So it doesn't fit the idea that one race is more intelligent than the other.

^when a small population is isolated (either geographically, as with natrual populations, or artificially, as with animal breeds), drift tends to fix a lot of genes in the population that have no benefit or are even slightly deleterious - for example, if the last individuals bearing the beneficial genes get wiped out by a landslide or other stochastic event. The remaining population tends to become very homozygous (ie, breeds true) in many or most of thier genes, whether those genes are advantageous or not; mixing in outside genes not only creates heterozygosity, so that submissive deleterious traits are submerged, but also introduces difference into the population so that genes can once again compete with each other in geologic time. In genetics, as with commerce, competition is often good. Some geneticists have speculated (I've never seen it in writing, so I have no citation for this) that some of the wild success of America is due not only to having a large continent of resources to take over, but having genes introduced from all over the world and mixing and matching. The population of the New World, and the United States in particular, is one of the greatest hotbeds of human genetic diversity outside of Africa. It basically means that the average 'mongrel' American has a great deal of heterozygosity compared to populations that have remained 'pure,' and that is a very good thing on both an individual and a population level.

Thats because the so-called 'pure breed' dogs are generally created via extensive in-breeding and tend to have within them genetic errors. The only 'pure' dog is the grey wolf which is the stock species modern dogs descend from..all dogs that came after them are merely super-adapted (exclusively by human intervention/needs) breeds.




Jakob: HBE = ?

^tangent: the lundehund, or puffin dog, is said to have adapted to climbing (fully functional extra toes) and crawling into caves (incredible flexibility and the ability to completely close off their ears) to hunt puffins purely by natural selection.

Well i believe that no matter what color your skin is all humans are the same color when they are skinned/gutted