Re: [evol-psych] Re: Request for prediction/speculation
- Variance of two races can not be measured because race does not exist
genetically! Current models suggest that we all originated from one female
within the last 250,000 years. Minor variation due to some limited
isolation has produced noticeable differences for some individuals. For
example being an American native, to me all whites, blacks, and Asian -
look alike. But strangely the Japanese look familiar... Humm, perhaps it
is because I read the latest report that said the closes group to the
American native are the Japanese. But I will tell you one things for sure,
those Japanese boys sure do build good cars and they own the most robots in
http://turn.to/ai (USA only)
"The age of extremely superior artificial intelligence has begun."
- Ralph is right on. There is a lot of visible denunciation of
"the race concept", but when anyone is forced to say what the
race concept is it invariably comes out sounding like species.
It is all word play. The answer is a number, that number is
about 1/8, and all the rest is word salad and sophistry.
Boyd and Silk ought to know better, but then again genetics is
not their specialty. And Venter! We sequence a single genome
and announce that there are no race differences: my little kid
can figure out that that makes no sense.
In fairness to the genome jocks, we have to remember that they
consume a lot of grant money and that the minute anyone starts
crying racism they are at risk of losing that funding.
A colleague last week described a meeting at NIH where a
prominent genome jock stood up and said humans were all the same,
race differences were insignificant, and so on. My colleage said
he "had a tear in his eye, one hand on his heart, and his other
hand on his wallet".
--- In evolutionary-psychology@y..., Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@c...>
> There is the major straw-man argument: "...large-scale geneticdifferences
> should occur along sharp boundaries. If such geneticdifferences exist,
> they have not been observed."
- What would happen if one did the following factor analysis:
assumed superficial race characteristics
names of the races
brain case volume
other physical characterists individually
short sequences of DNA individually
Has this been done? Is the data available easily? Why or why not?
Michael Lamport Commons, Ph.D.
Research Associate and Lecturer
Program in Psychiatry and the Law
Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Massachusetts Mental Health Center
74 Fenwood Road
Boston, MA 02115-6196
Telephone (617) 497-5270
Facsimile (617) 491-5270
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Harpending" <harpend@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Majority against race concept (are they right?)
> Ralph is right on. There is a lot of visible denunciation of
> "the race concept", but when anyone is forced to say what the
> race concept is it invariably comes out sounding like species.
> It is all word play. The answer is a number, that number is
> about 1/8, and all the rest is word salad and sophistry.
> Boyd and Silk ought to know better, but then again genetics is
> not their specialty. And Venter! We sequence a single genome
> and announce that there are no race differences: my little kid
> can figure out that that makes no sense.
> In fairness to the genome jocks, we have to remember that they
> consume a lot of grant money and that the minute anyone starts
> crying racism they are at risk of losing that funding.
> A colleague last week described a meeting at NIH where a
> prominent genome jock stood up and said humans were all the same,
> race differences were insignificant, and so on. My colleage said
> he "had a tear in his eye, one hand on his heart, and his other
> hand on his wallet".
> Henry Harpending
> --- In evolutionary-psychology@y..., Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@c...>
> > There is the major straw-man argument: "...large-scale genetic
> > should occur along sharp boundaries. If such genetic
> differences exist,
> > they have not been observed."
> News in Brain and Behavioural Sciences - Issue 75 - 2nd November, 2002
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, H.M. Hubey wrote:
> >>In keeping with the scientificThe spectrum is continuous, yes, but human settlement isn't. Populations
> >>definition of color, if hues are to be divided into color groups,
> >>large-scale differences should occur along sharp boundaries.
> Of course they don't!
> All you have to do is start up any graphics program (eg. a paint
> program) on a Mac or PC
> and the look at the 2D distribution of the colors.
> It is obvious that there are no such large-scale sharp differences along
> the boundaries.
> Instead of a sharp difference between Red and Blue, we observe a
> gradient that runs from
> Red to Blue via shades of purple. Ditto for Red & Green (yellow, orange
> etc gradient)
> and so on.
> Yet no fool says that colors are not real or that they don't exist, or
> that "Red is not a
> scientific concept" or any of the other silly things that some people
> say about race.
get separated from each other by mountains, rivers, lakes, deserts, and a
host of linguistic, religious, and other cultural barriers that effect
gene flow to different degrees. I don't think I would use the color
spectrum wavelengths as an analogy.
Ralph L. Holloway
NY, NY 10027
Web Page www.columbia.edu/~rlh2
- Ralph L Holloway wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but these figure were done back in the '70's
with mostly blood group gene frequencies. I , and I'm sure there are
others among us, who would really appreciate seeing an actual
calculation being done here on known DNA sequence materials for the
groups you mention, you know, with real numbers. I know it would help
me. The answer might not change in any particular way, but seeing the
actual calculating being done would be very useful.
As far as the actual calculating, a couple of papers that go through
the math are:
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P.E., Quattro, J.M. 1992. Analysis of molecular
variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes:
application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics
131:479-494. Free at:
Weir, B.S., Cockerham, C.C. 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the
analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358-1370.
I think at least the first one has some real numbers, although for
mtDNA and I don't recall what populations are used.
Also, I seem to remember that the user manual that comes with Arlequin
software has a methods section with explanations of different types of
- H.M. Hubey wrote:
> The numbers are relative.That was my sentiment exactly, and why I wrote The Race FAQ, because I
> What I would like to see is similar calculations involving different
> species e.g. chimps and humans,
> or cats, lions and tigers.
> Then we would have some feeling for what these numbers indicate.
couldn't see how the race question could ever be resolved without the
perspective gained by looking at what makes a race in other species.
Sewall Wright (of Fst fame) said a long time ago that if any other
species showed the level of genetic population structure (i.e., Fst)
seen in humans, the divisions of that species would be called
subspecies. Was he right? Or is the 10-15% of variance found between
continental populations truly negligible as we're so often told?
Well, there's a lot of literature out there these days, and I invite
anybody and everybody to do their own review of it. But as far as I
can tell, Wright was correct. The references are all there in my
paper and you can check them for the data analysis methods used.
On the other hand, of course, the fact that races exist in humans in
the same way that they exist in other species doesn't tell us a lot
about the ramifications, if any, for humanity as a whole.
The Race FAQ -- http://www.goodrumj.com/RaceFaq.html
- Ron Blue writes:
> Variance of two races can not be measured because race doesWell, I think one thing that has been lacking in these posts is how
> not exist genetically! Current models suggest that we all
> originated from one female within the last 250,000 years.
> Minor variation due to some limited isolation has produced
> noticeable differences for some individuals.
"race" is to be defined. Which leads to my question, what are the
racial classifications that are to be used? Without advocating a
post-modern stance, I would note that within the USA, race has been
defined differently at different time periods. Ethnicity for that
matter has been to. But don't take my word for it necessarily, check
out (in no particular order, and what is sitting on my desk at home at
Guterl, "The New Race Consciousness: Race, Nation and Empire in American
Culture," JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY, Vol. 10, 1999, pp. 307-352.
Kramer, "Empires, Exceptions, and Anglo-Saxons: Race and Rule between
the British and United States Empires, 1880-1910," JOURNAL OF AMERICAN
HISTORY, Vol. ?, 2002, pp. 1315-1353.
Gerstle, AMERICAN CRUCIBLE, Princeton Univ. Press, 2001.
And for the British defining "race" in the past, see:
Hutton, "Race and Language," INTERVENTIONS, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 53-72.
Winlow, "Anthropometric cartography: Constructing Scottish racial
Identity in the early 20th century," JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY,
Vol. 27, 2001, pp. 507-528.
So, it comes down to how we are defining these groups and really if our
definitions will stand the test of time..
Best, Mark Hall
Niigata Prefectural Museum