Race doesn't exist!

[Psychonaut]

Race is a bad word. It exists only in reference to humans and, as such, has never really had the weight of the biological community behind it. While the levels of morphotypical, genotypical, and behavioral differentiation that people generally associate with race do exist and are easily quantifiable as nodes on the Homo sapiens continuüm, the term itself has caused a great deal of friction in the last 200 years. Were it not for the connotations of intentional production breed would probably be the most descriptive term, since it applies equally to all domains of biology.

[Loki]

I am throroughly convinced of the truthfulness of this assertion. What do others think? Do you agree? If you disagree, bring up the arguments.

I am thoroughly convinced that you don't exist.

On a more serious note, of course race exists. It is more fluidly demarcated than traditionally believed, but there most certainly are distinct gene pools that manifest in certain visual external characteristics, commonly defined as "racial differences". Anyone who argues against this needs to go back to primary school logic of 1 + 1 = 2. It's not rocket science.

[Eldritch]

I am throroughly convinced of the truthfulness of this assertion. What do others think?

Without a doubt it is so. Some of the individuals in this photo are Somalis, while others are Swedes. But I for one sure can't tell which are which. Perhaps this is what you had in mind?

If you disagree, bring up the arguments.

That's not the way it works. If you are out to convince people of something, it's up to you to prove your point. It isn't that your assertion is valid until someone proves you wrong.

[Ibericus]

A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental "races" can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are "maximally informative" about group differences. Thus, they tell us what we already knew about the differences between populations of the classical "races" from skin color, face shape, and hair form. They have the added advantage of allowing us to make good estimates of the amount of intermixture that has occurred between populations as a result of migrations and conquests.

DNA tests offer clues to suspect's race

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...8-16-dna_x.htm

[Stefan]

I think we should look at the terms Monotypic and Polytypic when referring to humans and whether races exist or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Here is how wikipedia defines:

Monotypic

A monotypic species has no races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

- All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.

- The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.

- The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.

Polytypic

A polytypic species has two or more races or subspecies. These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not races: they are separate species.

The first two descriptions of a monotypic species don't fit well when describing humans. Now there has been gene flow among human populations, even before the colonial era. However, for the most part, populations have maintained distinctive clusters between each other. Europeans generally have been more similar with other Europeans and then with other Caucasoids, than with other Eurasians, and furthermore with other Eurasians than Sub-Saharan Africans, for example. Because of that, I think Polytypic describes humans much better. Although there are different levels of differentiation. Such as Eurasians vs. Sub-Saharan Africans opposed to Mongoloid vs Caucasoid(Europid). Now things have changed with the modern era, and the possibility of intercontinental travel, but that is a transition that still hasn't been made.

[Jarl]

Race is a bad word..

Subspecies is a better one

[Austin]

There are races. The notion that the scientific community is in full agreement that there is no such thing as race is laughable and is something the elite of the world would have you believe in order to profit from a zerg-mass with no identity whom they can sell to and buy like slaves at auction. Even if race is not an exact scientific reality, and that is extremely debatable, it is still undeniably a reality in the world you and I live in and in that respect race is an everyday reality that you should openly acknowledge.

If you are a mass-equality oriented person ask yourself why the establishment really wants to create a society devoid of race. Do you really believe it is out of some dignified sense of morality and humanism? Are you that much of a sucker? I pray not.

[Agrippa]

It exists only in reference to humans and, as such, has never really had the weight of the biological community behind it

With similar criteria as they exist between human (major) races, many biologists made up whole species in the animal kingdom and subspecies which are by far not more differentiated from each other than humans are.

The main "problem" with humans is not that the differences don't exist, but that humans are so successful, prolific and mobile! Which means that quite often even in areas in which there existed clear cut strong borders over a relatively long time span or could have existed, they were weakened or distorted by genflow.

This resulted in the fact that you have clear core areas for the major races in particular, which are biological unities, but rather blurred transitions and borders quite often too.

In this recent study, presented by Dienekes too, we get a clear impression, especially with this analysis:


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/06...-behar-et.html

With three components (3) you get: Negrid (red), Europid (blue) and Mongoloid and related (yellow).

Basques and Sardinians for example represent the genetic core group of the Europid race or better unmixed portions, most other populations commonly referred to as Europid show an absolutely clear predominance of the related genetic component.

And practially all groups, commonly seen as more intermediate or transitional are also genetically intermediate like the East Africans (Aethiopid), the Central-Northern Asian mixed populations (Europid - Tungo-Sibirid/Mongolid, Westsibirid and Aralid).

The major races just show differences so big that they can't be explained without significant isolation and selection in a certain phase at least - presumably a "strong differentiation phase" around the last Ice Age.

Also, like Stefan correctly said, whether you define the significant biological differences between populations and important anthropological types as race is a question of definition alone, yet the differences don't disappear and are of great importance from various perspectives - also if it's about kinship and kinselection by the way...

And, like I already mentioned, some animal subspecies are in no way, especially not qualitatively, more differentiated from each other. Going by adaptation as criteria, human races show often even much greater differences than species and the lack of absolute isolation is most of the time the primary reason for not having even species character between certain races.

[Matritensis]

In my opinion dog breeds don't exist.They are all Canis Lupus Familiaris.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Race is a bad word. It exists only in reference to humans and, as such, has never really had the weight of the biological community behind it.

Not so, a recent(ish) paper making mention of 'races' and 'subspecies' (interchangibly) of lions,
a wiki article on the lesser black backed gull makes a mention of the three 'races' of this bird (which is also an example of problems in the definition of 'species')
an animal encyclopedia arcitle mentioning the '8 races' of tiger, etc
it's more usual for these to be referred to as 'subspeices' especially today, this is semantics though

Were it not for the connotations of intentional production breed would probably be the most descriptive term, since it applies equally to all domains of biology.

no since (as you recognise) 'breed' is ment to apply to domestic/'artificially' selected animals,
subspecies is the more usual modern descriptive term for units below the 'species' level, applicable to all domains of biology