Posted: Aug 12, 2011 2:16 am
mcgruff wrote:@Biowatch
Nobody is saying there is no variation. However, variation is not the same thing as race. People always get the two mixed up.
If you are to prove the existence of race you would have to demonstrate distinct populations with unique genetic profiles.
However, this can't be done. There is no such thing as race in humans, just multiple intersecting clines.
Did you read the paper I cited above? Population genetics studies consistently show that when you aggregate dna from individuals around the world they fall into identifiable groups/clusters - which correspond to commonly recognised human races. You can call them varieties if you prefer that term.
I'm not sure what you mean by distinct unique genetic profiles - perhaps you are thinking of different species?
It appears that those who attempt to deconstruct the concept of race by
gratuitously burdening it with essentialist connotations (‘‘discrete’’, ‘‘non-overlapping’’,
‘‘discontinuous’’, ‘‘defined by racial markers’’, ‘‘racial genes’’, etc.) are
unaware that their criticism has already been addressed by Dobzhansky more than
40 years ago:
Professor Fried has correctly pointed out that there is no careful and objective
definition of race that would permit delimitation of races as exact, nonoverlapping,
discrete entities. Indeed, such criteria do not exist because if they did,
we would not have races, we would have distinct species. (Dobzhansky in Mead
1968, 165)
In fact, Dobzhansky’s argument should be taken one step further: the essentialist
requirement is so unrealistically demanding that, if this criterion were applied, even
the species concept would fail to pass muster: ‘‘
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesa ... e=Race.pdf
As Risch & co point out, the reason you get those clusters is because of geographic separation (oceans, deserts, mountains etc) over the past 50,000 or so years. Some examples of this clustering.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/ge ... gress.html