darkuser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure i understand wireless completely, but
> i think he's pointing out something central to
> this problem. The ideas that racial
> characteristics do not correspond to genotypes and
> differences within races exceed differences
> between races are not sufficient explanations for
> most people, which is why the concept persists.
> Some people still hold race as life and death
> matter. Proud Africans, Caucasians and Chinese
> (whatever these racial terms mean) will never see
> themselves as anything but racially distinct,
> citing their phenotypes as the best evidence,
> which it clearly is.
>
> They will not believe that they are more closely
> related to each other than to members of their own
> "race". The assumption may be that just as black
> cats are related to each other, they are members
> of their own "race". Some may even find the
> out-of-africa hypothesis hard to believe. Is
> anyone going to say that the several televised
> reconstructions of the neanderthals weren't
> Caucasian?
>
> A better explanation is needed to convince people
> that race has no taxonomic value. Perhaps,
> geography is a good explanation. In any case,
> noone will believe that such defining
> characteristics as the epicanthic fold or black
> skin are the result of natural variation, since
> they are clearly inherited.
The problem is that we keep mixing up two things. One is the concept of biological "races" this is a scientific concept that can be dealt with with evidence. Biological races do not exist. 1) the usual culprits -skin color, nasal morphology etc. are not good indicators of genetic descent because they are very susceptible to the environment (i.e. amount of solar radiation, the dryness of the environment etc.). Thus, one of the blackest groups of people in the world live in the Andaman Islands-- using the color criterion they would be classified as Africans-- but genetically they are as far apart from Africans as you can be.
2) relative to other species were are quite homogeneous. Research by Maryellen Ruvolo, 13 Sept. 1994 issue of *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* found a quite large difference between mtDNA of Gorilla gorilla gorilla (W Africa lowland) and E. Africa species G. g. graueri and G. g. beringei indicating a split about 3 MYA and almost making them separate species. Interesting was how little variation there was in human mtDNA. "Her findings support previous research showing that modern humans are remarkably less diverse genetically than are the great apes. 'The most different humans on the face of the earth are less different than two lowland gorillas from the same forest in West Africa.'...This lack of human diversity indicates a small ancestral population.
3). Latter (B.H.D. 1980> <<Genetic Differences Within and Between Populations of the Major Human Subgroups>> *The American Naturalist* 116 (2): 220-237), has developed an index which uses data from 18 polymorphic gene loci from 180 different human populations from each of the six major “racial” groups (classified as European, African, Indian, East Asian, New World and Oceanian) to give a measure of the proportion of genes which two randomly chosen individuals have in common. Comparison of this index obtained when the two individuals come from the same "race" with that obtained when the two are members of different "races" gives a clear indication of the degree to which the human population is divided into genetically different groups. Latter found that *By far the largest component of the total genetic diversity of mankind- about 84% of all genetic variation- results from the genetic differences which exist between individuals belonging to the same tribe or nationality.* About 6% arises from differences between tribes or nationalities (such as those found for example between the populations of France and Spain, or between different tribes in the east or west of Africa). *Only about 10% of the total biological diversity of mankind arises from genetic divergences between 'racial' groups. *In other words, the genetic differences between the classically described races of man are on the average only slightly greater than those which exist within nations within a racial group, and the genetic differences between individual human beings within a local population are far larger than either of these.
4) I can't find the exact numbers and its late-- but the level of human diversity Fst is much lower than the Fst values used to define zoological subspecies.
To say that "race" is biological has definite implications. Traits that are biological cannot be changed easily; biological "races" together with the usual racist assumptions that certain races are superior leads to the idea that this "superiority is inborn, etc.

The other concept is that "socially created races" i.e. people tend to classify others by looking at superficial external characteristics as belonging to some stereotypical "races" and that includes groupings that are NOT races but ethnic groups, religions, or language groups none of the following are "races"- Jews, Chinese, Hispanics, Arabs, English, Kurds, Asians, etc. These classifications are purely arbitrary-- not scientific-- and will vary depending on individual presuppositions. Obviously these "social races" exist in the minds of individuals, but because they are so idiosyncratic and arbitrary they haveno scientific validity-- at one time, a person with "one drop" of "Negro blood" was a member of the "Negro Race" this is a perfect example of a "socially created race."

Bernard