Are &#x27;native&#x27; Irish and British the same race?

Original post by Pyramidologist

Races are a biological reality. They are not unique to Homo Sapiens:

Mayr (2002)

Resolve the logical problem and account for Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusion.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 64

Original post by Pyramidologist

Do you believe species exist?

Species problem.

Which definition is correct?

Reply 65

Original post by Pyramidologist

Do you believe you or others (life) exists?

If you deny species/races exist, then you have to deny everything does in taxonomy, including life (see diagram).

Every stage is disputed, with more disagreement occurring the lower one goes. All the stages are socially constructed, as they require the anthropological selection of specific traits to produce a 'group' of individual organisms. The lack of consensus over whether various organisms should be in one group, another group or a new one entirely means that the nomenclatorial system cannot be said to 'exist'; i.e., the organisms and traits in question exist, but how these organisms are categorised is socially constructed. For example, I can say all organisms with a spine are one group and all organisms without a spine are another group, but this is non-concordant with the group that can live underwater and the group that can live on land. You can combine them to construct a further group, but you are still choosing two, specific traits to combine over the innumerable number that are present throughout the global biotic community (thus making the classification a social construct, which is marked by the heavy dispute over which traits are deemed essential to each stage); choosing all of them will leave you with the individual organism, which is the only objective unit that can be said to 'exist' outside of a socially constructed categorisation system.

For every stage you're left with one or two question(s) that demonstrate(s) the subjective nature of the system:

1.

Why have you chosen these traits over other ones as the system of grouping? "Just because", I expect.

2.

Does the logical premise of the definition lead exclusively to any given conclusion once it is applied to the biotic community (i.e., if 'species' are defined by how 'different' various organisms are from each other, the subjective nature of difference means it can be extended to the individual organism with the same logical reasoning. Consequently, anything above the level of the organism is an arbitrary process of grouping. As Livingstone (2008) said, you cannot apply your logical premise, arbitrarily select one conclusion and ignore all the other possible derivatives whilst claiming what you have done is objective)?

If these things were objective they would not be disputed. When it comes to stating, "these organisms have trait X; therefore, they form group Y", every claim is equally valid, but indisputably socially constructed, since they cannot all be objectively correct simultaneously (as per the conclusion of Barbujani and Belle (2006)). Obviously, things that are continuous like skin tone or craniometric dimensions add an additional layer of arbitrariness.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 66

cl_steele

2

Since when are nationalities races ? :s-smilie:

Reply 67

Psyk

16

Original post by Pyramidologist

Races are a biological reality. They are not unique to Homo Sapiens:

Ok, I'm willing to accept that. But what exactly is it that differentiates one race/subspecies from another? Clearly not everyone is unambiguously in exactly one race.

Original post by Pyramidologist

Do you believe species exist?

They exist, but it's a concept that humans made up. It's one of the methods we use to classify different forms of life.

Reply 68

sav91

Original post by sugar-n-spice

Well obviously Pakistanis and Afghans are the same race, just as Pakistanis and Brits are the same race, but different ethnicities.

Well, racial anthropologists defined Europeans and the Indo-Aryans of northwestern India and Pakistan as part of the broad Caucasoid umbrella race, but craniofacial anthropometry among Europeans and South Asians is distinct. For example, the Gracile-Indid or Indobrachid type that predominates in India and Pakistan is very distinct from the Keltic-Nordid type that predominates in the British isles (although the Bruenn type predominates in Ireland). The more progressive racial types in India and Pakistan (Nord-Indid, Irano-Afghan have more in common with Armenid and Anatolids than the racial types of Britain).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 69

jon64

we are all part of the human race, yes.

Reply 70

Original post by Pyramidologist

They aren't socially constructed as they are of discrete origins. Your theory everything is a social construst would only work if there were no biogeographical boundaries and everything had the same common ancestry.

How have you failed to understand everything I've said? I can't really simplify myself any further.

Everything does have common ancestry: it's called a phylogenetic tree for a reason. That image you linked has everything marked as a subset of all-encompassing 'life'. Do you not believe in the theory of common descent? Good luck refuting this: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10²⁸⁶⁰ times more probable than having multiple ancestors"

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 71

sav91

Original post by Pyramidologist

Gracile-Indids are morphologically indistinguishable from Gracile-Mediterranids. They are just an eastern continuation of the Mediterranid proper form. Hence in anthropological literature ''Mediterranean Indian'' is substituted for Gracile-Indid. This morphological type is found in the British Isles. The smaller, or 'proper' Gracile-Med (as opposed to tall Atlanto-Mediterranid) was in Britain and Western Europe from very early times.

Caucasoid is a subspecies, not a race. All the subtypes you listed are races or subracial varieties that fall within the Caucasoid subspecies. None of this is ''archaic''.

Gracile-Indids and Gracile-Mediterranids are quite distinct morphologically. The former show definite Indobrachid and sometimes Indomelanid admixture, whilst Gracile-Mediterranids show Dinaric, Atlantid, and Berid admixture. The easternmost continuation of Gracile-Mediterranid is probably Armenid or Levantine Arabid. The average northern Indian or Pakistani displays a distinctly different morphology when compared to an average Sicilian or Greek.

Reply 72

sav91

Original post by Pyramidologist

Most of those Indian racial nomenclature are not standard, they are from Eickstedt (1934). I've just looked through most books I have and I don't find those names listed. Coon disagreed with most of Eickstedt's typology. At one stage Eickstedt's neo-''Indid'' (Indide rasse or 'New Indian') was synonymous with ''Eastern Mediterranean'', it then got changed and carved into many local variations or topographical subtypes: Gracile, Nordide, Coarse Mediterranean, and Indo-Brachide. Note that it includes Coarse Mediterranean (whatever that it). I'm sure some of Eickstedt's work is useful, however racial anthropology really doesn't need all these confusing typologies. If there are discrete local or tribal phenotypes then its good to know, however Eickstedt's classification isn't at all easy to follow, and more prominent anthropologists found numerous contradictions and flaws in it. The biggest problem with Eickstedt is that while he quite correctly observed an Australoid substratum in India, he called this Veddid or Veddoid after the Veddhas. This term has stuck. Yet as Coon (1967) quite correctly shows the Veddas are in fact predominantly Caucasoid. So what we have is a completely inappropiate name for the Australoids in India, and its never changed.

Interesting - I have learnt something. I always assumed that Veddoid/Weddid was synonymous for Australoid in regards to the Indian subcontinent. The Australoid element is more associated with Dravidians and southern Indian racial types - although I imagine that the Veddhas must have a large Australoid component considering that they are associated with ASI rather than ANI, and ASI has a large Australoid component.

Reply 73

Original post by whyumadtho

How have you failed to understand everything I've said? I can't really simplify myself any further.

Everything does have common ancestry: it's called a phylogenetic tree for a reason. That image you linked has everything marked as a subset of all-encompassing 'life'. Do you not believe in the theory of common descent? Good luck refuting this: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10²⁸⁶⁰ times more probable than having multiple ancestors"

However it is completely irrelevant. Look at the British census ethnic section, do they ask you the origins of humanity and who your great ancestors were ? No.

They simply ask your nationality and ethnicity

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 74

Original post by whyumadtho

How have you failed to understand everything I've said? I can't really simplify myself any further.

Everything does have common ancestry: it's called a phylogenetic tree for a reason. That image you linked has everything marked as a subset of all-encompassing 'life'. Do you not believe in the theory of common descent? Good luck refuting this: "A universal common ancestor is at least 10²⁸⁶⁰ times more probable than having multiple ancestors"

Because you are being silly. You have no argument except to say everything is a social construct.

Even the most liberal and marxist people in society generally accept there are different ethnic groups and races on Earth.

Reply 75

Original post by Pyramidologist

That is from a paper put out by Theobald in 2010. It is debunked here:

http://www.tswj.com/2012/479824/#B2

See bold. The whole paper was based on the unfounded assumption a UCA (Universal Common Ancestor) existed in the first place. :rolleyes:

If you want to go by statistics or probablity the polyphyletic model has the most support. See Raup and Valentine's (1983) famous study.

Many biochemists and geneticists are now supporting polyphyletism or multiple origin of life models.

W. Ford Doolittle, (2000). "Uprooting the tree of life." Scientific American, 282(2):90-5.

See how there is no UCA, there are multiple (unconnected) root sources for the tree only linked through lateral genetic transfer.

"The theory of UCA allows for the possibility of multiple independent origins of life" (Theobald, 2010). That image doesn't refute this and I believe you are attacking a straw man.

They didn't undermine the UCA as a concept, it just undermines one author's pioneering attempt to reconcile the overwhelming pieces of evidence that support the UCA. Multiple theories that necessitate its presence and/or have demonstrated its likely existence independently can be observed to hold true (Lombard et al., 2012; Mulkidjanian et al., 2012; Fuerst and Sagulenko, 2012; Copley, 2012; Creevey et al., 2012; Yu and Xu, 2011; amongst many others). Opitz (2011) suggests, "[h]orizontal gene transfer complicates the task of tracing descent; however, in a post-RNA world it is evident that the three domains of life share so many properties (homologies) that common ancestry is the only logical conclusion", and continues by saying, "with modern methods it is possible to obtain inferences about [the LUCA's] biologic nature; [(Forterre and Philippe, 1999; Di Giulio, 2011; Glansdorff et al., 2008; Foreterre, 2005; Becerra et al., 2007; Hoenigsberg, 2003 and Doolittle, 2000)] its genetic constitution and content; [(Creevey et al., 2011; Tuller et al., 2010; Mushegian, 2008; Mat et al., 2008; Ouzounis et al., 2006)] and its protein molecules [(Ranea et al., 2006; Sobolevsky and Trifonov, 2006)]."

UCA has virtually reached the status of a biological axiom, but the shape or pattern of descent is what I now realise is disputed (however, this recent article has used multiple methods that produced treelike patterns: Abby et al., 2012).

Despite everything I've said above, those two questions I presented in the post before last remain extant: "We might entertain different sorts of hierarchical, multidimensionally clustered or reticulated classifications for different sorts of purposes. Alternatively, we could stick with current rRNA-based or total-proteome classifications, with the full admission that at the very best they are only just 'more natural' than other systems, in that more (or more 'fundamental') data may support them. But as with the placement of books on library shelves, there is in principle, no final truth of such matters" (Doolittle, 2009).

My logical argument and Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusion remain standing, and, in fact, the Doolittle (2009) article lends strong support to the socially constructed nature of various categorisation systems. As I said, disagreement occurs at every stage but increases as one descends. At the top, there is more agreement over various concepts (insofar as some are widely treated as axiomatic), but there are still alternative theories that are possible depending on the assumptions, methodologies and datasets used.

In addition, how does this lend support to your fundamental point? This is one of the many discrepancies of the domain stage and has no bearing on anything below. You were previously arguing that 'races' existed due to supposedly discrete phylogenetic lineages (wrong), and now you are discrediting the notion of discrete phylogenetic lineages due to lateral transfer.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 76

Again, like I said before, this is pointless.

Your argument has absolutely no use in the real world of day to day life.

You are now debating if life even exists ??? Seriously ???

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 77

Original post by democracyforum

However it is completely irrelevant. Look at the British census ethnic section, do they ask you the origins of humanity and who your great ancestors were ? No.

They simply ask your nationality and ethnicity

Pyramidologist and I are not discussing the national census, we're discussing evolutionary history to determine whether or not biological classification systems can be treated as objective.

Original post by democracyforum

Because you are being silly. You have no argument except to say everything is a social construct.

Even the most liberal and marxist people in society generally accept there are different ethnic groups and races on Earth.

Account for Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusion:

"Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model"

"The question is whether the differences between populations and continents, albeit representing a small fraction of the total, are large enough, and consistent enough across loci, to allow identiﬁcation of clusters of biologically-differentiated individuals. If so, by analysing different sets of genetic data, or the same dataset with different methods, one should consistently ﬁnd the same clusters, separated by boundaries of increased genomic change. If, on the contrary, no consistent clustering emerges, one should regard human genetic variation as essentially continuous in space. If variation is discontinuous, by attributing an individual to one genetic cluster, one would also obtain information on the individual’s genome in general, whereas, if variation is continuous, the labels placed on such groups would be biologically arbitrary. Rather, these labels could reﬂect cultural or social differences, but would have little to do with clear-cut genetic differences, including differences at the genes involved in complex pathological traits."

We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data." (Barbujani and Belle, 2006)

Then resolve the logical problem:

"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).

The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice." (Maglo, 2011)

Until then, you have no basis to suggest biological classification is objective. I'm not merely stating it is a social construct, I am directly demonstrating it is.

Reply 78

Original post by democracyforum

Again, like I said before, this is pointless.

Your argument has absolutely no use in the real world of day to day life.

I don't think you're ready for intellectual discussions if this is your ethos. You should have left this disregard for academic debate in secondary school.

You are now debating if life even exists ??? Seriously ???

The biological classification of 'life' is disputed. Ensure you understand that something being 'alive' and something being classed as 'life' are two different concepts.

Reply 79