SCI-AM Article - "Does Race Really Exist?"

[RUGeneticsStudent]

Hey guys, I'm brand new to this forum, and I found it really interesting because I am currently an undergrad at Rutgers University (new jersey, usa) going for my Genetics and Neurobiology degree, so this is right up my alley ;D (some of you may also know me as Shah Abbas on the mojtaba boards)

In any case, a new article by Dr. Bamshad (Univ. of Utah Medicine) and Steve Olson (Author of Mapping Human History) in the December issue of Scientific American has been making ripples in the genetic anthropological world. Dr. Bamshad attempts to compile as much information as is known about "race" and its ties to genetics, and in turn attempts to debunk as much information as he can. He in turn set up tests to see if he could accurately determine what general geographic region individuals came from. As many of you may know (and conversely may not know), things such as skin color, height, and physical proportions are polygenically inherited - that is multiple independent pairs of genes have similar and additive effects on the same characteristic. Hunting down those individual alleles would be not only taxing materially, but eventual dead end roads, as they are practically impossible to compare with other human beings empirically because they are tied to other genes which function for important bodily functions (that are similar to all races).


Instead, the latest method Bamshad employs is finding the polymorhphisms that have occured through the gradual migrations of human beings. Luckily, they occur at different frequencies about the world, so he set upon using the Alus polymorphisms (without going into a long winded definition about how it works -- I recommend reading the article).

He sat down with 565 different people from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Europe and used over 100 different Alus polymorphisms. He achieved 90 percent accuracy. (By the way, the Alus polymorphism strain is more or less "dead" -- it does not synthesize any proteins to knowledge)

What they found that was most interesting, is that individuals that can be similar phenotypically, can be completely dissimilar genotypically (a result echoed also by the work of Stanford scientits Rosenberg, Pritchard, et al who used 1000 test subjects). For instance, although some sub-Saharan Aboriginies may have similar pigmentation, but carry a completely "different" genotypic code. This is evidence of natural selection working on a minimized population.

This effect echoed when he found that groups actually differ less across continents, then in a certain ethnic area. So, for instance, a person from the North of China may have more genetic "relation" (all human beings are more or less 99.99% similar give or take +-.01), than another Chinese person from the far South of his country.

Of course, these scientists followed rigorous lab procedures and have thorough documentation available on the website, but I think this sheds another interesting chapter in human genetics. Although by no means a definitive explanation, it is another telling clue of the path and effect of human migrations and existence nonetheless.

[Scientific American, December 2003, pp. 78-85]

[Geoff]

Hello,

I have been having a long running argument for some time with extreme right wing activists on a British National Party (the extreme right wing party of Great Briton) forum on the subject of white supremacy. They have been, I believe, misusing the results of work by Bamshad and others at the university of Utah to reinforce their arguments for white supremacy. When the article you refer to was published in Sci-Am it was my view that it dispelled many of the lies that these people were spreading on the back of these scientist's work, and I used this article to reinforce my arguments against the notion of white supremacy.

Since then, this article has appeared on the internet via the National Vanguard magazine website.

I would very much appreciate your views on this article, and also would be most grateful if you might furnish me with a website where I might be able to talk to people with regard to picking holes in this article, as I'm afraid to say, it goes somewhat over my head.

The article can be found on http://www.nationalvanguard.org./story.php?id=1449

I look forward to your reply.

Best wishes,

Geoff.

[RUGeneticsStudent]

Geoff,

Thank you for replying to my post, and it is interesting to see that many people have been reading the article and misconstruing it as so.

I'm not sure of any forums, but if you want to use this thread to communicate with me, I wouldn't mind it a bit.

As you said, the article basically illuminated that there is no core difference between the "races". The locus that was chosen is the easiest marker possible -- it is a non-active polymorphism that has no known biological function. It is sort of like sticking a tracker tag with the word HI! on it, and then, on the next generation, the word HI!HI! is now on the tag, a result of the parent and next generation. When the HI!HI! has a child with someone who has a tracker tag of HELLO!-- the resulting child will be HI!HI!HELLO! Therefore, scientists look at where these polymorphisms usually geographically correspond to, and base judgements on where the original parents were from. It is nearly impossible (perhaps because of our methods - a scientist can never rule that out) to determine geographical ancestry through skin color/eye color/hair color etc. Those genes have additive effects on each other and deal more with statistics than with the Third Reich.

However, in my opinion, when you really think about it scientifically, a true difference between "races" is absolutely absurd. Some point to African-Americans as having a larger immunity to malaria because of their heterozygosity to sickle-cell anemia. This is true-- only because it was a regional adaptation to a very big problem. That situation illuminates the power of human evolution, not the preponderance of racial division.

In the end, we can create babies with each other, and share blood with each other with out a problem. If human beings were truly divided into scientific "races", that is if each race was truly a different species, interbreeding would result in sterilization. That is not the case however.

Heh, that must have been a lot, ask whatever you need to know, I'll answer as best I can

[Melnorme]

Different races are not like different species...they're more like different breeds of dogs. ( think Mongoloid vs Negroid : Chihuahua vs. Doberman )

[caucasoid]

Geoff said:

Hello,

I have been having a long running argument for some time with extreme right wing activists on a British National Party (the extreme right wing party of Great Briton) forum on the subject of white supremacy.

I don't know about the people who mignt be atracted to the forum, but the BNP is not "white supremacist" or racist.

[caucasoid]

RUGeneticsStudent said:

However, in my opinion, when you really think about it scientifically, a true difference between "races" is absolutely absurd. Some point to African-Americans as having a larger immunity to malaria because of their heterozygosity to sickle-cell anemia. This is true-- only because it was a regional adaptation to a very big problem. That situation illuminates the power of human evolution, not the preponderance of racial division.

But racial division is "regional adaptation". If race is invalid because the situation is about evolution, then so the idea of species must be as well.

In the end, we can create babies with each other, and share blood with each other with out a problem.

But, so can Lake Victoria haplochromines which are placed in seperate GENERA. Such hybrids are completely fertile just as the offspring of human races are.

If human beings were truly divided into scientific "races", that is if each race was truly a different species, interbreeding would result in sterilization. That is not the case however.

As far as I am aware no serious racial scientist has equated race with decreased interfertility since there are obviously racial hybrids (John Baker said it may be possible that there is a slight decrease of fertility, however).

Some anthropologists and zoologists have classified races as species, but they it without implying that hybrids are infertile.

Please, don't misrepresent race to make it easier to argue against.

[Geoff]

Shah Abbas?? ,

Thank you for replying to my post. I shall refer to your reply occasionally when arguing my points on this subject - and as and when I get stuck on a technical point or three in my arguments, I shall return to this fourm to consult you.

It does seem to me that Bamshad and others are working towards reinforcing the view that the ancestoral geographic origin of a person plus their skin colour and features have very little to do with being able to catagorize somebody into a particular 'set' at a fundamental level. It will be interesting to read the views of a few others on this forum.

[Melnorme]

Preview of what should be a good read :

www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

[Geoff]

Caucasoid wrote "I don't know about the people who mignt be atracted to the forum, but the BNP is not "white supremacist" or racist."

I would beg to differ.

The word racism is partly defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race."

I would now draw your attention to an interview given by the BNP leader Nick Griffin to the BNP's own website where he say's "as racial realists we have no choice but to accept the wealth of scientific data which shows that East Asians – Japanese or Chinese for example – who live in Western societies have lower average crime rates and higher average intelligence levels than us whites, and that these differences are genetically determined, persisting even when factors such as socio-economic status are taken into account. But recognising these facts does not mean that we would welcome the arrival of several million Japanese or Chinese immigrants.
Nor even does it mean that we think that it is a good thing for even a single person of European stock to have so much as one child with a Japanese or Chinese. We do not, because such a union mixes what are not meant to be mixed, destroys two ancient family lines, and undermines two equally great but entirely separate cultures. And we know that most self-respecting Japanese, Chinese and Africans feel exactly the same way."

Here, it seems to me, that Mr. Griffin has taken another tack with racism, but it does not hide the fact that he and, one must therefore suppose, his party are fundamentally racist (as defined in the O.E.D.). Griffin reinforces his statement by saying earlier in the interview that "Mankind is divided into races, and those races, while sharing many common features of humanity, are innately different in many ways beyond mere colour. Despite the propaganda of neo-Marxist academic and media prostitutes, and the cowardice of conservatives who dare not stand up to the totalitarian bullying of Political Correctness, this is a fact. Whether those differences are God-given or the result of evolutionary pressure is irrelevant; the important fact is that the British National Party recognises such ineradicable facts of human nature and seeks to base its political programme on such realities, and not on the pernicious fantasy of ‘human equality."

One would assume that by the very nature of the BNP as a party, they would consider the white 'race' to be superior on the whole to other 'races', otherwise they would surely encourage the mixing of people belonging to the 'white race' with those of other races, or at the very least be indifferent to it.

I wonder if science is at last overtaking these beliefs of Nick Griffin and the BNP.

I do not intend to turn this thread on the Sci-Am article into a political discussion, but I felt caucausoid's inaccuracy (IMHO) needed addressing.

[caucasoid]

Geoff said:

The word racism is partly defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race."

I would now draw your attention to an interview given by the BNP leader Nick Griffin to the BNP's own website where he say's "as racial realists we have no choice but to accept the wealth of scientific data which shows that East Asians – Japanese or Chinese for example – who live in Western societies have lower average crime rates and higher average intelligence levels than us whites, and that these differences are genetically determined, persisting even when factors such as socio-economic status are taken into account. But recognising these facts does not mean that we would welcome the arrival of several million Japanese or Chinese immigrants.

But he is quite right, of course, to believe that there is a difference in the ability of races.

Nor even does it mean that we think that it is a good thing for even a single person of European stock to have so much as one child with a Japanese or Chinese. We do not, because such a union mixes what are not meant to be mixed, destroys two ancient family lines, and undermines two equally great but entirely separate cultures. And we know that most self-respecting Japanese, Chinese and Africans feel exactly the same way."

Are the Japanese, Chinese and Africans racist? I would say that an increasing trend towards group cohesion and endogamy is universal among societies if they increase their population density. There are many, many examples of this happening.

Here, it seems to me, that Mr. Griffin has taken another tack with racism, but it does not hide the fact that he and, one must therefore suppose, his party are fundamentally racist (as defined in the O.E.D.). Griffin reinforces his statement by saying earlier in the interview that "Mankind is divided into races, and those races, while sharing many common features of humanity, are innately different in many ways beyond mere colour. Despite the propaganda of neo-Marxist academic and media prostitutes, and the cowardice of conservatives who dare not stand up to the totalitarian bullying of Political Correctness, this is a fact. Whether those differences are God-given or the result of evolutionary pressure is irrelevant; the important fact is that the British National Party recognises such ineradicable facts of human nature and seeks to base its political programme on such realities, and not on the pernicious fantasy of ‘human equality."

One would assume that by the very nature of the BNP as a party, they would consider the white 'race' to be superior on the whole to other 'races', otherwise they would surely encourage the mixing of people belonging to the 'white race' with those of other races, or at the very least be indifferent to it.

And I am afraid that here, you're argument goes ridiculous. There is no reasonable way, that you can argue that recognising real difference equals a belief in ingroup superiority. I don't want to be too rude, but it is illogical.

I wonder if science is at last overtaking these beliefs of Nick Griffin and the BNP.

Since Mr Griffin beliefs are based on population difference, for science to overtake his beliefs would mean that science has to prove that there are no differences between populations. And renaming races as "clusters" does not change, that something real is being classified.

I do not intend to turn this thread on the Sci-Am article into a political discussion, but I felt caucausoid's inaccuracy (IMHO) needed addressing.

I was not aware of the definition of racist that involved recognising differences in ability between races as real. (By this definition, everyone is racist, because we have all seen the achievements of black athletes)

I think that is right that political discussion here should be restricted to the "race and society" board. But I did want to argue against calling the BNP "white supremacist" which they are not. I think it was unfair to call them that.

[caucasoid]

Melnorme said:

Preview of what should be a good read :

www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

On there it says

"Sarich became the rare physical anthropologist expert on both genes and bones. So, when he saw PBS proclaim, "Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species," he dusted off the measurements of 2,500 human skulls from 29 different racial groups and compared them to 347 chimpanzee skulls from the two separate species of chimp (the common chimp and the bonobo). He discovered that the dissimilarity in head and face measurements between these species of chimp was less than half that found between the two most morphologically dissimilar human racial groups in the sample. (They were the narrow-headed Taita of Kenya and the wide-faced Buriat of Siberia)."

Wow, thanks for drawing my attention to this, Melnorme.

I find this quote very interesting and difficult for "race deniers" to explain away.

[Melnorme]

caucasoid said:

Wow, thanks for drawing my attention to this, Melnorme.

I find this quote very interesting and difficult for "race deniers" to explain away.

You're welcome. I'm always on the search for the politically incorrect truths of life.

[Gladstone]

caucasoid said:

I find this quote very interesting and difficult for "race deniers" to explain away.

I wish I could agree with you as to your optimism....But from the looks of things it seems we're dealing with folks who have little interests in facts when they fly in the face of their faith, (the word "their" refers to scientists who have allowed politics to effect results of research and the followers of the same scientists) ; when the facts don't fit they have little problem with simply inventing them. It is for a good cause they believe, nothing less than the saving of the planet; they think that excuses what amounts to lying, the ends justifying the means. What we are dealing with are the "racial flat earthers" of our time; the equivelant as to what Galileo faced when he met the Pope who was convinced that the sun circled the earth. The multi-culturalist well earn the name as that movement is nothing less than a modern cult. I don't even waste my time with them (and I advise others the same) as multi-cultist, as cultist are wont to be, are generally the most close-minded of people on this planet and also engaged in magical thinking. That is you want something to be true, so walla, it is (so they think). George Orwell warned of us of such folks, that is of people who thought that simply as something ought to be true from their way of seeing things, that was enough to make it so; seems no one (or not many) listened.

Let's hope when this latest bout of madness humanity is experiencing known as the multi-cult passes (and any truth loving person I think must hope it does), that truth (and the concept of it) will have survived relatively unscathed.

[caucasoid]

Gladstone said:

I don't even waste my time with them (and I advise others the same) as multi-cultist, as cultist are wont to be, are generally the most close-minded of people on this planet and also engaged in magical thinking. That is you want something to be true, so walla, it is (so they think).

You are right that it is usually impossible to convince tem. But, it IS possible to expose their errors, by debate with them in a public forum, to make sure that anyone undecided about it can see the truth.

Their views are dominant in the media - so people take it for granted that "race does not exist" is the only view possible.

Even the act of posting a counterargument on a website, only presents the truth as an alternative view, so it only goes part of the way to stopping this nonsense.

I believe that they should be engaged in public debate, because then each claim can be argued against one by one, and they either give in, or prove the point by bringing up the subject of Hitler, calling people names like "racist", repeating the same things after they have just been shown wrong etc.

[Gladstone]

I see what you are saying (you've got a great deal of patience). Best of success with reaching those not yet absorbed by the cult, and who knows that maybe once in a while someone may be even deprogrammed.