[whyumadtho]

(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.

[whyumadtho]

(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.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
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.

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

But in Britain we do classify people by ethnicity !

So it is irrelevant if it is a social construct or not.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
But in Britain we do classify people by ethnicity !

So it is irrelevant if it is a social construct or not.

"The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biological variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

• There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.
• Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.
• Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.
• Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
• Human variation research has important social, biomedical, and forensic implications."

"There was really only one fundamental difference of opinion among the symposium participants, which was about the precise nature of the geographic patterning of human biological variation" (Edgar and Hunley, 2009; Caspari, 2009; Edgar, 2009; Gravlee, 2009; Hunley et al., 2009;Konigsberg et al., 2009; Long et al., 2009; Ousley et al., 2009; Relethford, 2009; Wolpoff, 2009).

The academic world disagrees. It's incredibly naive to suggest something as pervasive as 'race' does not have any implications; it's tantamount to saying people in various parts of Nigeria treat witchcraft as a real phenomenon, so there should be no attempt to challenge this belief.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
.

I would say the UCA is similar to the Big Bang (and numerous other scientific theories where the inception cannot be observed). There is no completely conclusive evidence or certainty about what happened or the exact dynamics of it, and people are not yet able to perfectly reconcile all the evidence available, but numerous pieces of disconnected pieces of evidence exist that all indicate the presence of a Big Bang, or something of that nature. Of course, there are alternative theories, but most of what has been observed would require the Big Bang to have happened.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by sav91)
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.

The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005) recognises four major morphological types in India - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito:

All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The ‘‘Caucasoid’’ and ‘‘Mongoloid’’ populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The ‘‘Australoids’’ are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the ‘‘Negritos’’ are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

No breakdown though of specific subtypes. You do have to dig up earlier anthropological literature, however this does not mean they are outdated.

If you look through all the earliest reports on crania from the Indus Valley, you will see most the Caucasoid crania is just labeled ''Mediterranean''. It was Eickstedt (1934) who introduced all the other Caucasoid typological terms based on local or tribal variations. The only website that uses these is Apricity, however i've been on their forum and its pretty much a troll site.

[democracyforum]

However most people do classify themselves as an ethnicity and identify with a racial group !

But if it is a social construct, which it isn't, we have still have the issue of race and IQ, race and crime etc which prove maybe it isn't.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)

The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005) recognises four major morphological types in India - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito:



No breakdown though of specific subtypes. You do have to dig up earlier anthropological literature, however this does not mean they are outdated.

If you look through all the earliest reports on crania from the Indus Valley, you will see most the Caucasoid crania is just labeled ''Mediterranean''. It was Eickstedt (1934) who introduced all the other Caucasoid typological terms based on local or tribal variations. The only website that uses these is Apricity, however i've been on their forum and its pretty much a troll site.

Try Skadi, they do racial classifications of people, but most of them are self taught morons rather than experts.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
However most people do classify themselves as an ethnicity and identify with a racial group !

So what? Most people say they are citizens of a country, but it doesn't mean countries are not social constructs.

But if it is a social construct, which it isn't, we have still have the issue of race and IQ, race and crime etc which prove maybe it isn't.

Demonstrate it isn't a social construct by resolving the logical problem and accounting for Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusion.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I would say the UCA is similar to the Big Bang (and numerous other scientific theories where the inception cannot be observed). There is no completely conclusive evidence or certainty about what happened or the exact dynamics of it, and people are not yet able to perfectly reconcile all the evidence available, but numerous pieces of disconnected pieces of evidence exist that all indicate the presence of a Big Bang, or something of that nature. Of course, there are alternative theories, but most of what has been observed would require the Big Bang to have happened.

Your point of trying to prove race is a social contruct is what ?

That we are all the same ?

Only skin colour is our difference ? Culture maybe ?

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
So what? Most people say they are citizens of a country, but it doesn't mean countries are not social constructs.

Demonstrate it isn't a social construct by resolving the logical problem and accounting for Barbujani and Belle's (2006) conclusion.

Perhaps it maybe a social construct.

But it doesn't change the fact that in most societies people think there are different races and judge you from your skin colour, your phenotype, which comes from your genotype, thus deciding what race you are - and deciding if you should be discriminated against.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Your point of trying to prove race is a social contruct is what ?

That we are all the same ?

Only skin colour is our difference ? Culture maybe ?

Why don't you try reading my posts? Not once have I said we are the same, but that the derivatives of the logical premise of 'difference' cannot be arbitrarily selected and still classified as objective.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Why don't you try reading my posts? Not once have I said we are the same, but that the derivatives of the logical premise of 'difference' cannot be arbitrarily selected and still classified as objective.

So you are trying to say we cannot racially classify people .

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Perhaps it maybe a social construct.

But it doesn't change the fact that in most societies people think there are different races and judge you from your skin colour, your phenotype, which comes from your genotype, thus deciding what race you are - and deciding if you should be discriminated against.

Society changes, and once 'race' is no longer given the significance amongst policy makers it so wrongly receives, it will begin to fade in public consciousness over the generations.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
So you are trying to say we cannot racially classify people .

Not objectively.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Not objectively.

Okay, but the definition of race is not certain either.

If it is simply a phenotpye and skin colour, then there are different races, and this would be the most simple definition of a race of people.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Okay, but the definition of race is not certain either.

If it is simply a phenotpye and skin colour, then there are different races, and this would be the most simple definition of a race of people.

Nobody's phenotype or skin colour is the same (they are gradational and modifiable by external forces), so why are we all not our own 'race'?

[Jammyj12]

Ireland were not invaded anywhere near as much as England, and so while there will be many similarities as at one time there genetics would be identical there will be a number of genetic differences. However with the question of race Irish and English are from he same race just like the French, Germans ect

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
"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.

Lateral genetic transfer does not discredit polypyletism, it supports it. Prior to understanding lateral genetic transfer in cells, evolutionary biologists never questioned UCA/monophyletism which was dogma. As soon as lateral or horizontal gene transfer however was discovered, biochemists now support the independant origin of the earliest life forms. There is no evidence whatsoever for universal common descent. The common genetic code and similarity can be explained through horizontal genetic transfer.

In regards to subspecies or race, geneflow (genetic migration) explains genetic commonality, but races do not share common descent, they evolved from different ancestors but are just connected through peripheral geneflow.

Like lateral genetic transfer, geneflow is not vertical, but horizontal. So for example: A evolved from B, C evolved from D, C mates with A, but C and A are of independent or seperate racial origin (B and D). Do you understand? And that's Multiregional and Polygenism in a nutshell. The latter is just taking back the seperate linages to the beginning, rather than only to Homo Erectus for example.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Lateral genetic transfer does not discredit polypyletism, it supports it. Prior to understanding lateral genetic transfer in cells, evolutionary biologists never questioned UCA/monophyletism which was dogma. As soon as lateral or horizontal gene transfer however was discovered, biochemists now support the independant origin of the earliest life forms. There is no evidence whatsoever for universal common descent. The common genetic code and similarity can be explained through horizontal genetic transfer.

In regards to subspecies or race, geneflow (genetic migration) explains genetic commonality, but races do not share common descent, they evolved from different ancestors but are just connected through peripheral geneflow.

Like lateral genetic transfer, geneflow is not vertical, but horizontal. So for example: A evolved from B, C evolved from D, C mates with A, but C and A are of independent or seperate racial origin (B and D). Do you understand? And that's Multiregional and Polygenism in a nutshell. The latter is just taking back the seperate linages to the beginning, rather than only to Homo Erectus for example.

...I think you need to reread my post and perhaps my references. The LUCA theory is not incompatible with independent origins of life and there is overwhelming evidence in favour of it. The LUCA theory is virtually ubiquitous in biology, but reconciling the various traits of the putative domains is what has yet to be achieved. The type of network is what is disputed: "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). Nothing here is compliant with the two questions I presented a few posts ago; until they can be answered you cannot make a pretension to objectivity.

I've already invalidated any concept of 'race' in respect to phylogeny, and models with mitochondrial gene flow are 20-32 times less likely than models without it. You never responded to my point: how does this have any bearing on anything below the putative domain stage? Abby et al. (2012) demonstrated a monophyletic tree can still be constructed even with LGT.