On Human Diversity

[eufrenio]

On Human Diversity
Why has the genetics community discarded so many phenotypes?
By Armand M. Leroi

www.the-scientist.com/2005/10/24/16/1

There is a long tradition of speculation about whether racial differences in appearance are due to drift, natural selection, or even sexual selection. Such hypotheses can be tested by searching for the traces of selection in the genes that give us our looks. That, however, is for the future. And enthusiasm must be tempered by the recognition that such studies come with their own ethical and sociological problems. Medical geneticists rightly worry that misinterpretations might promote racial divisions or inflame the sensitivities of historically disenfranchised minority groups. Such concerns become even more acute when studying traits of no medical relevance and which have, as skull dimensions do, the taint of 19th-century racist science. My own view, or rather, hope, is that such concerns can be allayed given sufficient care, sensitivity, and candor on the part of researchers. Humans are, after all, the most phenotypically diverse species of mammal, perhaps animal, on earth. It would be a shame were we never to know why.

www.the-scientist.com/2005/10/24/16/1

[Melnorme]

"After the 1960s, physical anthropologists, struggling to bury the idea of race, buried phenotypes as well – sometimes literally so, as human remains have been reinterred by aboriginal claimants. They turned, instead, to comfortably neutral genetic markers to unravel the highways and byways of human history. This magnificent enterprise has charted our species' path out of Africa using successive generations of markers: blood type, allozyme, mitochondrial DNA, the Y chromosome, and nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). But is it enough? I would argue not. I would argue that it is time to resurrect the study of human phenotypic diversity."

Amen. Classifications for All!

[eufrenio]

Combining genetics with physical anthropology seems to be the way of the future.

[human2]

melnorme said:

"After the 1960s, physical anthropologists, struggling to bury the idea of race, buried phenotypes as well ? sometimes literally so, as human remains have been reinterred by aboriginal claimants. They turned, instead, to comfortably neutral genetic markers to unravel the highways and byways of human history. This magnificent enterprise has charted our species' path out of Africa using successive generations of markers: blood type, allozyme, mitochondrial DNA, the Y pchromosome, and nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). But is it enough? I would argue not. I would argue that it is time to resurrect the study of human phenotypic diversity."

Amen. Classifications for All!

Actually classifications never ceased. Tons of studies every year. It just went on the way of statistical models and osteology, in an effort to be less subjective and arbitrary... to avoid endless debates over pictures.

[asdf]

in an effort to be less subjective and arbitrary... to avoid endless debates over pictures.

That's hillariously fitting.

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

Actually classifications never ceased. Tons of studies every year. It just went on the way of statistical models and osteology, in an effort to be less subjective and arbitrary... to avoid endless debates over pictures.

The problem is that for a classification of pictures, to come to a congruent or at least similar result, its necessary to agree on an assumed typology in the first place, and racial typologies are the result of research on phenotypes or at least should be. We shouldnt compare fun games on fora, like to classify people from single pictures in incorrect poses with scientific or even half-scientific results and theories. Its the content behind such "picture debates" which matters...typology.

[human2]

agrippa said:

human2 said:

Actually classifications never ceased. Tons of studies every year. It just went on the way of statistical models and osteology, in an effort to be less subjective and arbitrary... to avoid endless debates over pictures.

The problem is that for a classification of pictures, to come to a congruent or at least similar result, its necessary to agree on an assumed typology in the first place, and racial typologies are the result of research on phenotypes or at least should be. We shouldnt compare fun games on fora, like to classify people from single pictures in incorrect poses with scientific or even half-scientific results and theories. Its the content behind such "picture debates" which matters...typology.

Real science is when you measure people, crunch those numbers in a computer program, and see if any natural loci show up.

Science is not about picking types and then proving they exist. God, I think the intelligent members have seen enough of that bias and idiocy. It's no different from parlor fantasy adventure games that game nerds play, where you have these fantasy races with cool names... forest elves, dark elves, Lothlorien elves.

[Melnorme]

human2 said:

Science is not about picking types and then proving they exist. God, I think the intelligent members have seen enough of that bias and idiocy. It's no different from parlor fantasy adventure games that game nerds play, where you have these fantasy races with cool names... forest elves, dark elves, Lothlorien elves.

Don't want to derail anything here, but ever notice that those same fantasy settings very rarely mention anything at all about racial/ethnic differences among their humans?

[human2]

melnorme said:

human2 said:

Science is not about picking types and then proving they exist. God, I think the intelligent members have seen enough of that bias and idiocy. It's no different from parlor fantasy adventure games that game nerds play, where you have these fantasy races with cool names... forest elves, dark elves, Lothlorien elves.

Don't want to derail anything, but do notice that those same fantasy settings very rarely mention anything at all about racial/ethnic differences among their humans.

Who needs or wants humans when you can have cool archetypal demons and gods...

[Agrippa]

Real science is when you measure people, crunch those numbers in a computer program, and see if any natural loci show up.

I agree. But even if at the time the studies were written no computer was available that doesnt mean they typology is wrong. Furthermore you have a classic problem if looking at mixed populations, if you would group a certain population (f.e. Belgium or Northern China) and look for statistical correlations, you will always get a basic correlated feature combinations out of the mixture even (aka Nordid-Atlantid and Alpinoid or Sinid and Tungid).
The problem is they dont even prove those typologies in most modern studies which focus on ancestral markers and small details rather than general racial specialisation (which change the whole organism drastically through different selective filters which can work even on an originally heterogenous population).

[human2]

agrippa said:

Real science is when you measure people, crunch those numbers in a computer program, and see if any natural loci show up.

I agree. But even if at the time the studies were written no computer was available that doesnt mean they typology is wrong. Furthermore you have a classic problem if looking at mixed populations, if you would group a certain population (f.e. Belgium or Northern China) and look for statistical correlations, you will always get a basic correlated feature combinations out of the mixture even (aka Nordid-Atlantid and Alpinoid or Sinid and Tungid).
The problem is they dont even prove those typologies in most modern studies which focus on ancestral markers and small details rather than general racial specialisation (which change the whole organism drastically through different selective filters which can work even on an originally heterogenous population).

Yes, I know. Progressive Nordsinids are mixed with proto-Europids and Europids. But I'm not gonna take your word for it.

[Agrippa]

Yes, I know. Progressive Nordsinids are mixed with proto-Europids and Europids. But I'm not gonna take your word for it.

Just because some individuals are or might be mixed doesnt mean Nordsinids in general are because Nordsinids are a Mongolid core group, especially after my definition of race above.
Furthermore that has nothing to do with the validity of the typological concept of Nordsinids.

[human2]

agrippa said:

Yes, I know. Progressive Nordsinids are mixed with proto-Europids and Europids. But I'm not gonna take your word for it.

Just because some individuals are or might be mixed doesnt mean Nordsinids in general are because Nordsinids are a Mongolid core group, especially after my definition of race above.
Furthermore that has nothing to do with the validity of the typological concept of Nordsinids.

Do you even realize that if I wanted to, I can make a whole lot more of claims on Europe than you can on Asia?
And instead of using little word games to prove my point, I'd actually use studies/literature in academia/peer-reviewed journals.

I save you the trauma.
You keep insisting on proto-Europids in Asia but can't even stand the fact that progressive Baltic and Uralic and "Pamirid" types have anything to do with "Mongoloids".

[Agrippa]

And instead of using little word games to prove my point, I'd actually use studies/literature in academia/peer-reviewed journals.

They should use genetic results to explain the make up and physical anthropology to describe racial types. The types, or if you so want feature combinations should include soft parts and bones, head-skull and body features. So at least including pigmentation, hair and skin characteristics, morphological characteristics of the soft parts on the living, height and proportions, bone and cranial features, indices and special characteristics. After this features have been sampled they should be group regionally and for regions it should be looked if there are correlations (f.e. lower CI, higher HLI) inside a population. If you find the same correlations over a wide area, even if the populations are all mixed, you have found types, racial specialisations.
If we look back into prehistory we should find for regional-population specialisations ancient remains for that development, if its just a social specialisation inside a population its more difficult, but usually extreme social specialisations without any other racial base dont occur too often...

As long as you dont show me such studies or at least studies which speak against the assumed typology its of secondary importance for a racial typology.

Lappoids have non-Europid features btw.