Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 34 35 36 37 38 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Sep-09, 05:27:14)Krom Wrote: A race/subspecies is an intergenerational deme or meta-population (group of demes) that shows a high level of genetic differentiation.


So to argue that "Caucasoids", "Mongoloids", and "Negroids" are not races, despite being "bio-geographic ancestry groups", or natural divisions in the Darwinian sense, you have to employ a revised concept of race, race as "(gamo)deme", a concept which you yourself noted only became popular after the late 1930's. But sure, I agree that "Caucasoids", "Mongoloids", and "Negroids" currently are not (i.e., do not perfectly overlap with) races qua (genogamo)demes, I maintain however that:

(a) they are races qua natural divisions
(b) race qua natural division is more true to the original concept (less revised) than race qua (genogamo)deme
© definitionally equating race/subspecies with (genogamo)deme conflicts with actual zoological practice. In my paper, I provided a hypothetical:

"For example, in the world, there are only a handful of the northern subspecies of the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum). And there is only one male. Imagine that for conservation purposes they were transported to a southern white rhinoceros preserve. Imagine also that the remaining members of the northern subspecies bred freely with the members of the southern. When precisely would the white rhinoceros cease to have two traditional subspecies? When the last of the northern race died? When no full-blooded northern rhinoceros could be born? Currently, since there are so few of the northern subspecies? It is the sorties paradox applied to natural populations. No attempt to answer these questions will
be made here (though it will be noted that conservationists do speak of the last of a race or subspecies)."

When relocated to the southern white rhinoceros preserve the northern joins that southern deme. Oddly, though, zoologists recognize that the northern is still of a different subspecies lineage. How do you explain this, given your understanding? By the way, in section III, I discussed the natural division concept in relation to some zoological-population ones:

Quote:There is potentially discord, though, between some population concepts of race and a natural division one. In zoology, for example, races are at times imprecisely defined as geographic “populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species” (Mayr (1940), cited in O’Brien and Mayr (1991)). When this definition is literally read, such groups need not be natural divisions; they could be collections of ancestrally dissimilar subpopulations which happened to coincidentally inhabit a common locale – for example, a zoo space – and which happened to differ on average from other such collections. More precise zoological definitions stipulate that members share “phylogenetically concordant” characters and a “unique natural history” (O’Brien and Mayr, 1991). These qualifications specify that members of one race are relatively more similar to other members of the same race owing to common ancestry. Thus, we are left with something akin to natural divisions. There are, though, two potential areas of disagreement between such conceptions and a natural division one. First, when members of a zoological population-race are said to have “shared a geographic range” this could be taken either descriptively or prescriptively. Insofar as it is taken as the latter, as a membership criterion, we are dealing with a narrow form of a natural division and with a curious type of race, given the genealogy of the concept, one which attempted to explain why relocated organisms retained their region of origin characteristics. As we understand things, races are not defined in terms of geographic relationship; rather, such relationship is an explanation for the breeding patterns which brought them about. Second, in discourses where races are said to be “populations,” as opposed to classes or divisions, the exact degree of genetic similarity that is needed for an individual to qualify as a member of a specific race is often not clarified. We are left with a fuzzy conception which lends itself to a fuzzy set concept reading, one in which the boundaries of races are left indiscrete. Races as populations then potentially represent fuzzy sets, while natural divisions as we primarily understand them represent discrete sets....
 Reply
(2015-Sep-09, 04:40:50)Krom Wrote: I have more evidence for my claims, this time for Buffon.


Answer the question below:
http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...85#pid3585

Quote:2. Regarding races and levels of analysis, which of the following would you like to maintain were not infrequently recognized as races (in the sense which I mean)?
a. major regional divisions like Buffon's European race
b. lesser regional divisions like Buffon's Tartar race
c. nation-size ethnic divisions like "Japanese" (often called "minor races" or "local races") e.g., "Sarawak has a mixed population, consisting of Malays, Milanows, Chinese, Dyaks, and other minor races too numerous to mention" (De Windt, 1882)
d. largish intra-national divisions like some of the many races of Africa enumerated by Prichard in "Physical Ethnography Of The African Races".
e. Smaller groups like Congolese pygmies or various island and hill races (sometimes called "tribal races") and other well differentiated department or village sized groups e.g., many of Wallace's Malay Archipelago races in "On the varieties of man in the Malay Archipelago".
f. weakly differentiated adjacent department or village sizes groups

And while doing so, recall this:
http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...26&page=33

Quote:As I pointed out (in my paper) a number of people do require non-trivial differences for races. But others do not. Following Kevin de Queiroz I try to construct a general concept. de Queiroz does this for species, which has the same sort of problem, some defining them as e.g., intrinsically isolated groups, some not...Now, for a general concept which includes local divisions, I only have to show that a non-trivial number of people accepted the existence of micro(geographical) or local races, which is easy to do, especially since my concept is not human specific. I can show that this is the case now (google search '"local race" genetic' ~ 1000 hits; Ngram search "microgeographic races") and that it was often the case in the pre-1900s (Ngram search "local race" or "minor races")...My position, which distinguishes between general and narrow concepts, is consistent with the view that some to many defined races as groups which "significantly" differed. I simply call that a narrow definition a la de Queriroz. As such, you can not falsify my claim by pointing to people who understood races to only be significantly different groups -- you can only by showing that few to none recognized as races groups which differed in "minor" ways. Right? Your position, on the other hand, which makes no general/narrow distinction is inconsistent with the view that some to many understood races such to include groups which differed in "minor" ways. To falsify that, I only need to point to people who understood races such to include these groups. Right? Now, of course, when I point to anyone post Dobzhansky you claim that I am dealing with a revised concept. But surely you can't use this revisionist counter for people between 1750 and the early 1900s. So would you agree that I can rendered untenable your position simply by marshalling a list of pre Dobzhansky people who recognized as races groups which differed in a minor ways?

To the question you answered "yes" -- which, seemingly, gives me down to (e).
 Reply
(2015-Sep-08, 04:53:44)Krom Wrote: No, you have to have independent referees/reviewers (usually at least 3) that are qualified in the subject, furthermore they should not show some sort of heavy or clear bias....Kev Macdonald the only referee is not qualified, his background is psychology (not biology, physical anthropology or genetics which Fuerst's paper mostly covers). Macdonald also is heavily biased


The paper cut across so many subjects that there was no one who would have been an expert with respect to the full content. When writing it, I did consult philosophers of race such as Neven Sesardic and J Shiao and I did communicate with race critics such as Alan Templeton and Massimo Pigliucci, for example, respectively, on supposed subspecies Fst criterion and on ecotype concepts. I also consulted others, who would like to stay anonymous. As for reviewers,

Peter Frost is a well published anthropologist, who has written on similar topics. He was particularly qualified to review parts of section II and IV. Davide Piffer's expertise is population genetics; he has published in notable journals such as "Intelligence" and he has conducted novel research regarding some of the esoteric population genetic issues which I discussed. He was particularly qualified to review parts of section IV. Kevin MacDonald has published on evolutionary psychology, specifically on topics such as ethnic nepotism, which I discuss in my section 6. He was specifically picked because I addressed ethnic parochialism with respect to morality and since I discussed some of his own positions, which I presume that he is an expert on.

Of course, none of these reviewers were critical of my meta-position, because there is little to be critical of, given how I tightly constructed the thesis; they were critical of specific points, of course. If you actually read through the paper, you will find that section II.2 (beginning) is the only epistemically problematic part. Beyond that there are simply typos, which is why, despite months of discussion, you have yet to uncover a major problem which I did not address in my paper.
 Reply
(2015-Aug-29, 02:27:26)Krom Wrote: Each time I look up one of your old sources - they say the opposite what you say and confirm what I posted. Here's what I found for Kant:

Immanuel Kant "Of the Different Human Races" (1777):
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...7/KANT.pdf

Things to note:

1. Kant clearly states races must show significance (distinctiveness, relative homogeneity etc) in their characteristic heritable features, otherwise they do not justify a "special division"/classification:

"The people of this stock would always be recognizable and might even be called a race, if their characteristic feature does not seem too insignificant and so difficult to describe that we are unable to use it to establish a special division." (emphasis added)


How, possibly, does this contradict anything I said? For one, in my article, I quoted this very passage. For another, "does not seem too insignificant" and does not seem "so difficult to describe" implies 'just significant and describable enough to allow one to classify individuals into genealogical based divisions', which entails 'does not need to be very significant or describable'. Now, the question is: if kant knew about molecular based classifications (cluster analysis), what would he think? Would he say: (a) 'well, you can classify, so those would be races also' or would he say (b) 'well, no, by 'race' I mean visibly classifiable, because...' If (b) what would his reason be? I couldn't think of a good one, so I argued that he would go with (a). I notice that you keep conflating issues. Somehow from 'different enough to allow for a visual/metrical classifying' you jump to 'need to have Templeton like 'deep discontinuities''. You could, of course, argue that, based on pre 1940s usage, the term "race" should not apply to classes which can be molecularly but not visually/metrically classified. But this provides no leverage in arguing that races need deep differences. Rather, it provides both an argument to the contrary (they only need to be visible classifiable) and a simple alternative rebuttal to Hochman like critiques.
 Reply
Demes, meta-populations, subspecies (races) are relatively discontinuous or more-or-less isolated gene pools. Not always completely, but they are to a high enough degree they do not have arbitrary or vague boundaries. This is something Templeton (1998) stresses in his paper. Instead your "Caucasoid", "Negroid", "Mongoloid" are just arbitrary spatial divisions.

Tell me why "Caucasoid" is a "natural race", when someone can divide genetic variation in a different way that creates a completely different geographical cluster/spatial division.

Who is Caucasoid? Where are the boundaries? No proponent of race has ever agreed.

At best you cannot argue these "races" are real/natural, but only convenient -- admitting they are arbitrary. For example -

"Thus J. Z. Young (1971) writes of three major "poles" of differences among the world's peoples."
- Racial variation in man: proceedings of a symposium held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, on 19 and 20 September 1974

Your argument could be we can just split genetic continua so there are "poles" (extremes), despite the boundaries between these "poles" being very imprecise (not natural). This is not though what you are arguing for which is why you don't make any sense.

I understand though it will be hard for you to accept (with a heavily politicized agenda) the truth that your races are nothing more than your own mental constructs. But you could still argue they are useful. This is a different argument to what you are arguing above and clinging onto "naturalness".

I have explained though that race isn't useful -- your arbitrary divisions are only capturing miniscule or trivial amounts of variation. You don't explain what use they even have.
 Reply
(2015-Sep-09, 20:52:04)Krom Wrote: Demes, meta-populations, subspecies (races) are relatively discontinuous or more-or-less isolated gene pools. Not always completely, but they are to a high enough degree they do not have arbitrary or vague boundaries. This is something Templeton (1998) stresses in his paper. Instead your "Caucasoid", "Negroid", "Mongoloid" are just arbitrary spatial divisions.


I am growing weary of playing pop-up-goes-the-weasel with you.

1. demes/meta-demes need not be relatively discontinuous; show me a definition that requires this.
2. races need not be taxa subspecies (taxa); if they must, explain how nested races are possible; if nested races are not, explain why the literature on race continually discusses them.
3. natural divisions are not necessarily demes. If you think otherwise explain.
4. races were never generally historically conceptualized as being "relatively discontinuous or more-or-less isolated " Thus: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...04#pid3504 Agree?
5. Templeton's taxa subspecies criterion was made up. If you disagree, explain why he was unable to provide me with a reference which supported his claim and why the reference he provided in his papers didn't. Just search "Templeton" in my paper.
6. If taxa subspecies need to be discontinuous, explain Albrecht, Gelvin, and Miller (2003): "Population structure refers to the geographic arrangement of local populations across the species' range. Population structure can be described in terms of three phenomena: the population continuum, geographic isolates, and zones of secondary intergradation (hybrid zones) (e.g., Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). The population continuum is that part of the species' range where there is continuity of contact among local populations, some of which may be recognized as subspecies if sufficiently differentiated." Previously discussed here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...13#pid3513

Please respond to the above.

Quote:Tell me why "Caucasoid" is a "natural race", when someone can divide genetic variation in a different way that creates a completely different geographical cluster/spatial division.

Previously discussed (10 pages back): http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...52#pid3452
Also: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...47#pid3447
You failed to reply. Per biological usage, nature division = genealogical arrangement, not nature made partition (the latter don't exit, since inevitably there is a cross temporal continuum.)

Quote:Who is Caucasoid? Where are the boundaries? No proponent of race has ever agreed.

That would be a West Eurasian, a cluster which generally shows up at K=5. Races like populations and demes are relational entities.

Quote:At best you cannot argue these "races" are real/natural, but only convenient -- admitting they are arbitrary. For example -

The delineation of all natural divisions is constrained by propinquity of descent, an objective reality. So, along that dimension they are not arbitrary. Given a perfect population continuum, which typically doesn't exist, you could though "arbitrarily" cut out non-overlapping regions of IDB-genomic space. To conceptualize race otherwise would be to conceptualize it inconsistent with historical usage (point 4), no?

Quote:Your argument could be we can just split genetic continua so there are "poles" (extremes), despite the boundaries between these "poles" being very imprecise (not natural).

When race is discretely conceptualized, the boundaries would be very precise. There would just be intermediate groups which fell in zones of intergradation. See above.

Quote:I understand though it will be hard for you to accept (with a heavily politicized agenda) the truth that your races are nothing more than your own mental constructs.


Is propinquity of descent (ancestry informative molecular relatedness) "nothing more than my own mental construct"? If not than races necessarily aren't either.

Quote:I have explained though that race isn't useful -- your arbitrary divisions are only capturing miniscule or trivial amounts of variation.

That would depend on which races we were discussing, no? For example, the average SNP fst difference between North East Asians and West Africans ~ 0.15. The difference between individuals is ~ 1/2*(1-between race), so the ratio of between individual, betwee race to between individual, within race is ~ 0.15/0.425. That's trivial? Given what metric?

Quote:You don't explain what use they even have.

Same as "biogeographic ancestry groups". e.g.,
(a) admixture mapping
(b) controlling for population structure in GWAS research
© efficacy studies to see if interventions generalize

(I am interested in (a) just with respect to behavioral traits, not boring medical related ones.) This is a dead end for you, since the concept which I justifiably call race is now so widely used.

Here again: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...21#pid3521

"I articulated a meaningful sense in which races, so defined, were both real and natural. So you changed the issue to one of whether the race concept and/or its application to humans was "useful". I noted that it was useful for me. And I noted that a number of others employ race or race-like concepts. I also pointed out that the "genetic population", "genetic cluster", and "biographic ancestry group" concepts as often formulated -- ones which clearly are seen as being useful by many -- are equivalent to the general race concept which I was discussing. And I noted that a number of race-critics have pointed out the same, arguing... Recognizing that if you granted that e.g., "biographic ancestry" groups are races "in a phony moustache and glasses" (Silverstein, 2015) you would have to concede the "usefulness" argument, you began to double down on your race-revisionist one..."

...But now you have taken to employing revised race concepts such as race qua metagamodemes to argue against the coherence of my historically grounded race qua natural division concept.

You obviously have nothing. You can't even answer my questions.
 Reply
(2015-Sep-09, 22:37:50)Chuck Wrote: You can't even answer my questions.


Here is a list of them. Please answer each.

(1) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...52#pid3452

"Would you at least agree that this latter sense has currency in biology? Dobzhansky summarized the idea nicely -- and even employed the book analogy which you used. In case that it helps, I attached excerpts from his "Evolution Genetics and Mankind", which is available at https://archive.org/

Think the matter over and then let me know if you agree that races, as I define them, form natural divisions in the above sense -- and if this sense has currency"

(2) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...55#pid3455

Do you agree that the entities often called "populations", "clusters", "biogeographic ancestry groups" can, based on historic term usage and insofar as they actually cut out what I call races, legitimately be called "races"?

(3) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...62#pid3462

I don't think that Garn equated races with demes -- but I will have to read more of his articles to be sure. That is, I imagine that his races were like Dobzhansky's where while all races are "Mendelian populations", not all Mendelian populations -- specifically demes which were not genetically "distinct" -- are races. Thus, he notes that his races share a fraction of genes in common. Strictly speaking demes do not need to. Would not you agree?

(4) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...80#pid3480

You are making one of two arguments here:
(1) "race concept isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them" which precludes the accurate classification of humans into racial (i.e., genealogy-based) groups.
(2) "race concept isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them" which means that differences between said-human groups are of no importance.

Could you clarify which one? ... Now, before I discuss the problem with argument (2) above, I would like you to clarify whether you mean (1, or 2). If (2), could you clarify the logic? Specifically, how would you quantify "importance" in terms of average racial difference?

(5) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...81#pid3481

Here, I see two arguments:
(a) race typologists in the early 20th century (generally) argued that the variation between races was non-trivial/major.
(b) race theorists prior to Boas (generally) argued that the variation between races was non-trivial/major.

Would you agree that monogenists such as Prichard argued that the variation was relatively unimportant -- since it was of the intraspecific type?

A problem with both claims about the bimetric typologists is that "non-trivial/major"/"trivial/minor" is a somewhat subjective estimate; as such, it's difficult to put claims on a common metricand to evaluate if they overestimated differences.

So how would you propose to evaluate early 20th century qualitative claims? I would think that we would just look at their quantitative data. Isn't it reasonable to assume that they thought that differences were no larger than their reported data showed? If so, since they present the data with means and standard deviations we can just look at that. If it shows differences no larger than what is now known, we can conclude that they though that differences were no larger or significant than they quantitatively are. If so, then I would just have to show that their metrical data was not greatly off to show that their evaluations were not. Do you agree?

(6) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...89#pid3489

Naturally enough, I explicitly formulated the concept such to be consistent with divergence due to isolation by distance (e.g., page 41) -- which is to say a continuum due to primary intergradation. This is what distinguishes it from e.g., Shiao's "clinal class" one (see page 64).

Now you quote:

"Therefore, there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or races."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

You know that I know the history of this debate at least as well as you do, so I don't see why you would cite the above. Shiao (2014) addressed this in his defense of his clinal class concept. But of course, you are right, my stance is:

(a) one could "arbitrarily divide" a "genetic continuum" into races.

Of course, I anticipated objections to this position and discussed them lengthy. Which parts of my discussions didn't you find convincing? Do you want me to refer you to the specific sections or to elaborate on specific points?

(7) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...89#pid3489

Pearson's comment suggests that he was overestimating the relative magnitude of between group differences -- though it is not clear as it's not clear if Pearson was discussing multivariate distance (his coefficient of likeness, which was a primitive form of Mahalanobis distance) or average differences. Whatever the case, the very occurrence of this discussion calls your claim of a general view of homogenous races into question. And once you admit that variability was recognized, you are forced to double down on your claim that biometric typologists felt that variability within populations arose from the admixture of distinct homogenous groups. Yet it is clear that they didn't believe in originally distinct homogenous races. Thus Pearson notes....

If they diverged from a common stock in continuous degree and now contain enough variability such that a " Coefficient of Racial Likeness" is needed when and how were they ever homogenous groups in the sense you mean?

(8) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...91#pid3491

To preclude confusion, let's distinguish issues:

(1) whether or not the natural division concept of race is coherent
(2) whether or not such and such characters are reliable indexes of evolutionary relationship (and thus reliable indexes of racial membership)

Recall this discussion on reliability
http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...47#pid3447

Could you clarify which point you wish to discuss in relation to the forensic data?

(9) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...97#pid3497

As held by whom? Buffon, Blumenbach, Esper, Prichard, Darwin, Quatrefages ...? Specifically, list the many early (hence "traditional") proponents of race (as divisions of a species) who maintained that these divisions were -- moreover were definitionally so -- marked by "abrupt change" or "sharp discontinuity". I do not want to hear Naomi Zack's bullshit; I want specific "traditional" references.

(10) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...09#pid3509

But I like to settle one point at a time. When you concede that races per se were not typically thought of as deeply discontinuous and were often recognized to be continuous I will revisit the question of original -- "in situ" -- homogeneity.

[Do you concede this?]

(11) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...13#pid3513

Krom: Grover Krantz was a proponent of race. Unlike you he wasn't trying to redefine the concept.

How possibly are his "micro-races" qua micro geographical populations more authentic than my natural division ones?

(12) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...18#pid3518

Krom: but the fact most biologists do not regard categories like "Caucasoid", or "Negroid" to be useful.

Could you point us to the surveys which show that most biologists do not consider such and such race concepts to apply meaningfully to modern humans?

(13) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...66#pid3566

Do you agree that when an author claims that there are "large" differences between such and such races this does not entail that her concept of race necessitates such differences? Yes or no?

(14) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...74#pid3574

Would you honestly argue that this wasn't revisionist? (Please answer.) That early race concepts proposed treeness in Templeton's sense of having little admixture, great isolation, and significant discontinuities (Didn't we discuss this?) or that early concepts required high between group genetic variation -- when the concept of "gene" was not developed until the late 19th to early 20th century. Or that race was always identified with subspecies, when the race concept preceded that latter and given that authors often drew the distinction between subspecies in the taxonomic sense and race. Or that early subspecies concepts required the types of differences now seen as sufficiently taxonomically significant -- actually there are no formal criteria; and the only generally accepted rule of thumb is the 75% one, by which major human races qualify as taxa subspecies --for BSC subspecies recognition.

(15) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...85#pid3585

To sum up, if you wish to argue that race is only a useful classification if all races in a given species at a given time are given names then you must either (a) maintain that races must be taxa or (b) contend that same holds for all other like classifications e.g., "deme", "(spatial) population", "morph", "biotype", "stock", "strain", "cluster", "form", "ecotype", "groups" (i.e., assemblages of closely related taxa), "semispecies", and "super-species". Which will it be? You will have to adopt either an absurd position (b) or a revisionist one (a).

2. Regarding races and levels of analysis, which of the following would you like to maintain were not infrequently recognized as races (in the sense which I mean)?


(16) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...95#pid3595

Esper is saying that subspecies/races are not the same as inconstant varieties ("plane ab his sunt separandae") because like species, and unlike inconstant varieties, they reproduce their separate type ("Ad procreandam sobolem eamque ipsis aequalem aptae"). But, he notes, they are also not like species, because they originated from species ("Originem ex speciebus duxisse"), similar to how inconstant varieties do ("caussa qua fuere mutatae eadem manente"), which is obvious because they lack essential or species-like differences ("perfectus in iis declarat partium essentialium similitudo"). That is, according to Esper, different subspecies/races, while distinct ("Characteríbus autem pariter sunt distinctae") are essentially the same and thus unlike species.

Now, perhaps you can explain how you get "subspecies require "perfect similarity" in certain traits" from " Originem ex speciebus duxisse, perfectus in iis declarat partium essentialium similitudo". And while you are at it, perhaps you can explain how Esper's statement that subspecies are while different essentially the same fits with your narrative.

(17) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...01#pid3601

For example, North and South America form two massive genogamodemes, but surely not two biogeographic ancestry groups or natural divisions. Thus, what I call race -- and what was often called race -- is not redundant with what you call deme.

So that we can move forward, can you either concur or disagree?

(18) Here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...03#pid3603

If my race concept is not useful, then why is it so often used, just under different names e.g., "biogeographic ancestry groups", "genetic clusters", etc?



Thanks.

P.S. from my last post:

2. races need not be taxa subspecies (taxa); [Do you agree?] if they must, explain how nested races are possible; if nested races are not, explain why the literature on race continually discusses them.

3. natural divisions are not necessarily demes. [Do you agree?] If you think otherwise explain.

4. races were never generally historically conceptualized as being "relatively discontinuous or more-or-less isolated " Thus: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...04#pid3504 Agree?

5. Templeton's taxa subspecies criterion was made up. [Do you agree?] If you disagree, explain why he was unable to provide me with a reference which supported his claim and why the reference he provided in his papers didn't. Just search "Templeton" in my paper.

6. If taxa subspecies need to be discontinuous, explain Albrecht, Gelvin, and Miller (2003): "Population structure refers to the geographic arrangement of local populations across the species' range. Population structure can be described in terms of three phenomena: the population continuum, geographic isolates, and zones of secondary intergradation (hybrid zones) (e.g., Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). The population continuum is that part of the species' range where there is continuity of contact among local populations, some of which may be recognized as subspecies if sufficiently differentiated." Previously discussed here: http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.ph...13#pid3513

...

The delineation of all natural divisions is constrained by propinquity of descent, an objective reality. So, along that dimension they are not arbitrary. Given a perfect population continuum, which typically doesn't exist, you could though "arbitrarily" cut out non-overlapping regions of IDB-genomic space. To conceptualize race otherwise would be to conceptualize it inconsistent with historical usage (point 4), no?

....

Is propinquity of descent (ancestry informative molecular relatedness) "nothing more than my own mental construct"? If not than races necessarily aren't either [, no?].

....

That would depend on which races we were discussing, no? For example, the average SNP fst difference between North East Asians and West Africans ~ 0.15. The difference between individuals is ~ 1/2*(1-between race), so the ratio of between individual, betwee race to between individual, within race is ~ 0.15/0.425. That's trivial? Given what metric?
 Reply
The *ideal* deme is 100% a mating isolate or gene pool (this means 100% of x individuals choose sexual mates within x, hence random mating: panmixia). This is rarely found, so demes by definition are -more or less isolated-, meaning sharply (but not always wholly) discontinuous local breeding populations where out-group mating (i.e. gene flow) is minimal.

Gamodeme
•A more or less isolated breeding community of organisms. (Merriam Webster 2011)

Gamodeme: "a deme forming a more or less isolated local interbreeding community."
- Gilmour, J.S.L. & Gregor, J.W. (1939). Demes: a suggested new terminology. Nature 144, 333.

This is the standard definition, and the sharp mating/genetic isolation is based on spatial distinctiveness (although in humans there might also be cultural factors).

The deme as a basic "unit" for the population geneticist cannot be completely vague. That would make no sense because it would mean the mechanisms of genetic change (evolution) could not be measured. How for example would it be possible to measure or detect gene flow, if you have arbitrary gene pools to begin with?

I'm not re-defining a single term here, it is you who does for everything. You are defining not only race incorrectly, but also deme.
 Reply
(2015-Sep-10, 00:43:47)Krom Wrote: The *ideal* deme is 100% a mating isolate or gene pool (this means 100% of x individuals choose sexual mates within x, hence random mating: panmixia). This is rarely found, so demes by definition are -more or less isolated-, meaning sharply (but not always wholly) discontinuous local breeding populations where out-group mating (i.e. gene flow) is minimal


How do you deduce "sharply" from "more or less isolated"?

Would you agree that you can cut demes out of a breeding continuum? Or do you imagine that you need sharp barriers separating any two demes?

Please answer this.

[Added:

If demes exhibit "sharp" differences owing to "spatial distinctiveness" then natural division races do also, since the latter are located in distinct (i.e., non-overlapping) regions of genomic space.]
 Reply
redundant.
 Reply
 Previous 1 34 35 36 37 38 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)