Changes for page The Existence of Race

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -21,23 +21,23 @@
21	21
22	22	In biology, a species may be monotypic (no distinct subspecies) or polytypic (composed of multiple subspecies or races). The term “race” is a traditional synonym for subspecies.{{footnote}} https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26756268_Is_Homo_sapiens_polytypic_Human_taxonomic_diversity_and_its_implications#:~:text=The%20term%20race%20is%20a,sapiens{{/footnote}} Humans ( *Homo sapiens* ) are *often* said to be monotypic (no subspecies), with “races” claimed to be social constructs without biological basis. However, many scientists argue that humans are in fact a polytypic species, exhibiting multiple distinct lineages or races, much like other widespread mammalian species.{{footnote}} https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/october-1999/#:~:text=height%2C%20weight%2C%20strength%2C%20intelligence%2C%20and,called%20varieties%2C%20subspecies%2C%20or%20races{{/footnote}} {{footnote}} https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26756268_Is_Homo_sapiens_polytypic_Human_taxonomic_diversity_and_its_implications#:~:text=The%20term%20race%20is%20a,sapiens{{/footnote}}
23	23
24		-Biologists historically defined subspecies as populations with distinct trait clusters and genetic differentiation. Recent research supports that human populations meet several scientific criteria for subspecies. For example, one 2009 analysis noted that *Homo sapiens* has \*\*high levels of morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity, and between-group genetic differentiation (F<sub>ST</sub>) compared to many animal species that are acknowledged to be polytypic (having subspecies).{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=of%20the%20framework%20of%20race,of%20potential%20human%20phylogenetic%20species{{/footnote}} In other words, the extent of differences among human groups is as large as or larger than that seen between subspecies in other species.{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=of%20the%20framework%20of%20race,of%20potential%20human%20phylogenetic%20species{{/footnote}}
	24	+Biologists historically defined subspecies as populations with distinct trait clusters and genetic differentiation. Recent research supports that human populations meet several scientific criteria for subspecies. For example, one 2009 analysis noted that *Homo sapiens* has \*\*high levels of morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity, and between-group genetic differentiation (F<sub>ST</sub>) compared to many animal species that are acknowledged to be polytypic (having subspecies).{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=of%20the%20framework%20of%20race,of%20potential%20human%20phylogenetic%20species{{/footnote}} In other words, the extent of differences among human groups is as large as or larger than that seen between subspecies in other species./foot
25	25
26		-Historically, physical anthropologists identified numerous human races based on clusters of inherited physical traits. Joseph Deniker (1900) and Hans F. K. Günther (1927), for instance, catalogued various races (or “racial elements”) in Europe and worldwide, distinguished by traits like skull shape, stature, facial form, hair texture, and pigmentation.{{footnote}} https://archive.org/stream/racialelementsof035485mbp/racialelementsof035485mbp_djvu.txt#:~:text=one%20or%20the%20other%20race,over%20the%20nape%20of%20the{{/footnote}} Such early classifications recognized, for example, a “Nordic race” in Northwest Europe – characterized by *tall stature, long heads (dolichocephalic), narrow faces, and light pigmentation* – versus a “Dinaric race” in the central European Alps with *shorter, broad skulls (brachycephalic) and broader faces*.{{footnote}} https://archive.org/stream/racialelementsof035485mbp/racialelementsof035485mbp_djvu.txt#:~:text=one%20or%20the%20other%20race,over%20the%20nape%20of%20the{{/footnote}} The fact that even pre-genetic era scientists could reliably identify geographically distinct human types underscores that human variation is non-random and structured, consistent with the existence of races.
	26	+Historically, physical anthropologists identified numerous human races based on clusters of inherited physical traits. Joseph Deniker (1900) and Hans F. K. Günther (1927), for instance, catalogued various races (or “racial elements”) in Europe and worldwide, distinguished by traits like skull shape, stature, facial form, hair texture, and pigmentation. Such early classifications recognized, for example, a “Nordic race” in Northwest Europe – characterized by *tall stature, long heads (dolichocephalic), narrow faces, and light pigmentation* – versus a “Dinaric race” in the central European Alps with *shorter, broad skulls (brachycephalic) and broader faces*. The fact that even pre-genetic era scientists could reliably identify geographically distinct human types underscores that human variation is non-random and structured, consistent with the existence of races.
27	27
28	28	## Genetic Evidence for Human Races##
29	29
30		-With the advent of genetics, researchers can directly examine human population structure. Modern genomic studies have repeatedly found that human genetic variation is not a homogeneous blur, but rather clusters into discernible groups corresponding to traditional racial categories and geographic ancestry.{{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}} Notably, in a landmark analysis of over 3,600 individuals from around the world, genetic clustering algorithms could sort people into distinct groups (clusters) that correspond almost perfectly to self-identified race/ethnicity. In that study, *over 99%* of individuals were genetically classified into the same group as their self-declared race (only 5 out of 3,636 were exceptions). Such findings directly refute the notion that race is purely arbitrary; instead, they show that an individual’s continental ancestry can be determined from DNA with over 99% accuracy in these samples.{{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}}
	30	+With the advent of genetics, researchers can directly examine human population structure. Modern genomic studies have repeatedly found that human genetic variation is not a homogeneous blur, but rather clusters into discernible groups corresponding to traditional racial categories and geographic ancestry. Notably, in a landmark analysis of over 3,600 individuals from around the world, genetic clustering algorithms could sort people into distinct groups (clusters) that correspond almost perfectly to self-identified race/ethnicity. In that study, *over 99%* of individuals were genetically classified into the same group as their self-declared race (only 5 out of 3,636 were exceptions). Such findings directly refute the notion that race is purely arbitrary; instead, they show that an individual’s continental ancestry can be determined from DNA with over 99% accuracy in these samples.
31	31
32	32	Genetic clusters consistently mirror the major traditional races. If humans are partitioned into, say, five genetic clusters, these turn out to correspond to people of Africa, Europe (and West Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, respectively. (Increasing the number of clusters can subdivide groups further; for example, a six-group analysis might separate out a specific population like the Kalash of South Asia as its own cluster.) The point remains that human genetic variation is geographically structured in a roughly hierarchical way, reflecting our evolutionary history of populations expanding and diverging in relative isolation. These genetic groupings correspond closely to classical racial groupings, even if researchers today often use the terms “population” or “ancestry” instead of “race”.
33	33
34		-One striking genetic finding is that sub-Saharan Africans form the most divergent branch of the human family tree. Worldwide DNA surveys consistently show that *Africans (especially indigenous sub-Saharan groups) have the greatest genetic distance from all other human populations*. This is consistent with the “Out of Africa” model: African lineages are the oldest and most diverse, whereas non-African populations stem from one subset of Africans that migrated out \50–70,000 years ago, acquiring additional differentiation subsequently. After the primary African vs. non-African split, the next major genetic differentiation is often observed between Oceanian (Australo-Melanesian) peoples and the rest of Eurasians. Other continental groups – Europeans, East Asians, Native Americans, etc. – cluster intermediate to those extremes. In essence, humans have a *tree-like genetic structure* with real branches, rather than being a uniform blend.{{footnote}} https://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/october-1999/#:~:text=If%20we%20return%20to%20the,fascinating%20topic%20for%20another%20day{{/footnote}}
	34	+One striking genetic finding is that sub-Saharan Africans form the most divergent branch of the human family tree. Worldwide DNA surveys consistently show that *Africans (especially indigenous sub-Saharan groups) have the greatest genetic distance from all other human populations*. This is consistent with the “Out of Africa” model: African lineages are the oldest and most diverse, whereas non-African populations stem from one subset of Africans that migrated out \50–70,000 years ago, acquiring additional differentiation subsequently. After the primary African vs. non-African split, the next major genetic differentiation is often observed between Oceanian (Australo-Melanesian) peoples and the rest of Eurasians. Other continental groups – Europeans, East Asians, Native Americans, etc. – cluster intermediate to those extremes. In essence, humans have a *tree-like genetic structure* with real branches, rather than being a uniform blend.
35	35
36		-It is true (as often cited) that within-group genetic variation is large: roughly 85% of human genetic variation exists *within* local populations, and only \15% between major races. However, this fact – first highlighted by Richard Lewontin in 1972 – does not mean races are meaningless, and it can be misleading if taken out of context. The key rebuttal is known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy.” Lewontin had calculated variation one gene at a time, finding each gene’s differences small between groups. But later statisticians (such as A. W. F. Edwards) pointed out that while any single gene varies mostly within groups, the correlations among many genes allow nearly perfect classification of individuals into their population of origin. As Edwards noted, *Lewontin’s argument “ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of individual factors.”* When many loci are considered together, distinct genetic signatures emerge for different races. In practical terms, while two individuals from different races may share certain genes or traits, when you look at hundreds or thousands of genetic markers simultaneously, the overall pattern reveals their differing ancestry.{{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}}
	36	+It is true (as often cited) that within-group genetic variation is large: roughly 85% of human genetic variation exists *within* local populations, and only \15% between major races. However, this fact – first highlighted by Richard Lewontin in 1972 – does not mean races are meaningless, and it can be misleading if taken out of context. The key rebuttal is known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy.” Lewontin had calculated variation one gene at a time, finding each gene’s differences small between groups. But later statisticians (such as A. W. F. Edwards) pointed out that while any single gene varies mostly within groups, the correlations among many genes allow nearly perfect classification of individuals into their population of origin. As Edwards noted, *Lewontin’s argument “ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of individual factors.”* When many loci are considered together, distinct genetic signatures emerge for different races. In practical terms, while two individuals from different races may share certain genes or traits, when you look at hundreds or thousands of genetic markers simultaneously, the overall pattern reveals their differing ancestry.
37	37
38		-Moreover, the level of between-group genetic differentiation humans *do* have (about 10–15% variation partitioned between races) is not biologically trivial. In population genetics, a statistic called F<sub>ST</sub> measures the genetic differentiation among populations. Humans’ inter-group F<sub>ST</sub> values (on the order of 0.1–0.2 between continental groups) are comparable to or greater than those seen between subspecies in many other animals. In fact, one analysis showed humans have *higher* genetic differentiation and heterozygosity than some species that are formally divided into multiple subspecies. For example, many mammal and bird species are split into subspecies for far smaller genetic gaps. Thus, by zoological criteria, it is reasonable to view major human populations as akin to subspecies.{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=of%20the%20framework%20of%20race,of%20potential%20human%20phylogenetic%20species{{/footnote}}
	38	+Moreover, the level of between-group genetic differentiation humans *do* have (about 10–15% variation partitioned between races) is not biologically trivial. In population genetics, a statistic called F<sub>ST</sub> measures the genetic differentiation among populations. Humans’ inter-group F<sub>ST</sub> values (on the order of 0.1–0.2 between continental groups) are comparable to or greater than those seen between subspecies in many other animals. In fact, one analysis showed humans have *higher* genetic differentiation and heterozygosity than some species that are formally divided into multiple subspecies. For example, many mammal and bird species are split into subspecies for far smaller genetic gaps. Thus, by zoological criteria, it is reasonable to view major human populations as akin to subspecies.
39	39
40		-In sum, genetic evidence strongly supports the existence of biological racial groupings. Humans are a diverse, polytypic species – not in the sense of completely discrete, non-interbreeding groups (human races grade into each other and have fuzzy boundaries), but in the sense of statistical clusters of both genes and traits. These genetic clusters are real enough that they can be used predictively (e.g. for biomedical purposes or forensically) and reflect deep evolutionary history./foot
	40	+In sum, genetic evidence strongly supports the existence of biological racial groupings. Humans are a diverse, polytypic species – not in the sense of completely discrete, non-interbreeding groups (human races grade into each other and have fuzzy boundaries), but in the sense of statistical clusters of both genes and traits. These genetic clusters are real enough that they can be used predictively (e.g. for biomedical purposes or forensically) and reflect deep evolutionary history.
41	41
42	42	## Morphological and Physical Differences Among Races##
43	43