Changes for page The Existence of Race

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -105,11 +105,11 @@
105	105
106	106	Modern researchers advocating a biological understanding of race do not claim that races are *totally separate or discrete*. Instead, they recognize that human variation is clinal and statistical – meaning traits change gradually over geography and that any racial boundaries will be blurred at the edges. But *fuzzy boundaries do not erase the existence of clusters*. As evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne explains, the existence of intermediate cases or the arbitrariness of drawing lines does not negate the reality that genetic ancestry clusters exist and matter.{{footnote}} https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/#:~:text=The%20meaning%20of%20the%20biological,evolutionary%20origin%20of%20group%20members{{/footnote}} {{footnote}} https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/#:~:text=,And%20Me%20stay%20in%20business{{/footnote}} We can analogize to colors of the rainbow: there is no sharp boundary between, say, orange and yellow, yet orange and yellow are real groupings on the light spectrum. Similarly, human groups transition gradually, yet Africans, Europeans, East Asians, etc., are real genetic clusters at the continental scale.{{footnote}} https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/#:~:text=,And%20Me%20stay%20in%20business{{/footnote}}
107	107
108		-Another common misconception comes from quoting Lewontin’s 85% figure (within-race variation) to say “there are more differences within races than between them.” This argument, as discussed, is fallacious when used to dismiss race./foot Yes, any two random humans share the vast majority (\99.9%) of their DNA, and any two people of the same race are not genetically identical either. But the pattern of that 0.1% difference is highly structured by ancestry. Numerous loci considered together provide enough information to distinguish populations with great reliability. To put it another way, the *overall genomic similarity* between any two humans is high, yet the *specific ways* in which they differ can tell us their ancestral background. This is why genomic analysis can determine a person’s continent-of-origin, or even more fine-grained ethnicity, from a DNA sample – something impossible if race were solely a social fiction.
	108	+Another common misconception comes from quoting Lewontin’s 85% figure (within-race variation) to say “there are more differences within races than between them.” This argument, as discussed, is fallacious when used to dismiss race.{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=An%20argument%20is%20that%20there,it%20is%20fallacious%20because%20it{{/footnote}} Yes, any two random humans share the vast majority (\99.9%) of their DNA, and any two people of the same race are not genetically identical either. But the pattern of that 0.1% difference is highly structured by ancestry. Numerous loci considered together provide enough information to distinguish populations with great reliability.{{footnote}}https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/#:~:text=authors%20note%3A{{/footnote}} To put it another way, the *overall genomic similarity* between any two humans is high, yet the *specific ways* in which they differ can tell us their ancestral background. This is why genomic analysis can determine a person’s continent-of-origin, or even more fine-grained ethnicity, from a DNA sample – something impossible if race were solely a social fiction.
109	109
110		-Some critics argue that human groups haven’t been isolated long enough to speciate or form true subspecies. It’s true humans only began dispersing out of Africa \70k years ago, which is recent in evolutionary terms. But even in that time, significant differentiation has occurred. In fact, researchers have pointed out that *numerous other mammal species* have subspecies that diverged around the same time frame as human races did. For example, certain baboon species or leopard subspecies separated from each other only tens of thousands of years ago and are recognized as distinct. The relatively short timeline does not preclude meaningful evolutionary change, especially under strong selective pressures (like climate, disease, diet). Human evolution didn’t “stop” in the Paleolithic; it continued in varying directions on each continent. As a result, the concept of human races remains biologically valid in describing that differentiation.
	110	+Some critics argue that human groups haven’t been isolated long enough to speciate or form true subspecies. It’s true humans only began dispersing out of Africa \70k years ago, which is recent in evolutionary terms. But even in that time, significant differentiation has occurred. In fact, researchers have pointed out that *numerous other mammal species* have subspecies that diverged around the same time frame as human races did.{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=Another%20false%20argument%20is%20that,gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1689361{{/footnote}} For example, certain baboon species or leopard subspecies separated from each other only tens of thousands of years ago and are recognized as distinct. The relatively short timeline does not preclude meaningful evolutionary change, especially under strong selective pressures (like climate, disease, diet). Human evolution didn’t “stop” in the Paleolithic; it continued in varying directions on each continent. As a result, the concept of human races remains biologically valid in describing that differentiation.
111	111
112		-It’s also worth noting that biological race ≠ racist ideology. Acknowledging biological races does *not* imply any rank or inherent superiority/inferiority; it simply recognizes human adaptive diversity. Many scholars prefer the term “population” or “ancestry group” to avoid the political baggage of “race,” but the underlying idea is the same. Philosopher Neven Sesardić has argued that the biological concept of race (as used by scientists like Dobzhansky mid-20th century) is still sound and has been unfairly misrepresented by social constructionists. Sesardić showed that the oft-cited conceptual criticisms (e.g. “races aren’t discrete,” “no trait is unique to a race”) do not actually invalidate the biological race concept properly understood. In fact, when one looks at what current genetic research says, it vindicates the notion that self-identified race corresponds to real patterns of genetic ancestry and variation, even though race has social dimensions too.
	112	+It’s also worth noting that biological race ≠ racist ideology. Acknowledging biological races does *not* imply any rank or inherent superiority/inferiority; it simply recognizes human adaptive diversity. Many scholars prefer the term “population” or “ancestry group” to avoid the political baggage of “race,” but the underlying idea is the same. Philosopher Neven Sesardić has argued that the biological concept of race (as used by scientists like Dobzhansky mid-20th century) is still sound and has been unfairly misrepresented by social constructionists.{{footnote}} {{/footnote}} Sesardić showed that the oft-cited conceptual criticisms (e.g. “races aren’t discrete,” “no trait is unique to a race”) do not actually invalidate the biological race concept properly understood. In fact, when one looks at what current genetic research says, it vindicates the notion that self-identified race corresponds to real patterns of genetic ancestry and variation, even though race has social dimensions too.
113	113
114	114	## Conclusion##
115	115