Let's be honest: race IS biological, isn't it?

Question

That is, broad populations of humans with a shared ancestry are sufficiently different to warrant being considered different subspecies - i.e. geographic race.

To anyone who drifts over here from the social science section to tell me that race is "a construct", "genetically meaningless" or whatever, consider that:

"... there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (Raymond Coppinger and Richard Schneider in James Serpell, The Domestic Dog, p33)

Why do we put up with this widespread untruth (race isn't biological)? Should biologists be lying for some perceived social good?

Answer 1

Vast new data in human biology have completely revamped the traditional notions of race. Race is a biological term that describes the DNA structure of an individual as a fixed attribute that cannot be changed. This idea is used in biology to discuss how different peoples adapt to environments and hence, making the term "race" have no scientific basis. Today most scientists reject the concept of race as a valid way of defining human beings. Researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in genes that people inherit from their ancestors. Genes vary, but not in the popular notion of black, white, yellow, red and brown races. Many biologist and anthropologists have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances.  

In the past, races were identified by the imposition of discrete boundaries upon continuous and often discordant biological variation. The concept of race is therefore a historical construct and not one that provides either valid classification or an explanatory process. Popular everyday awareness of race is transmitted from generation to generation through cultural learning. Attributing race to an individual or a population amounts to applying a social and cultural label that lacks scientific consensus and supporting data. While anthropologists continue to study how and why humans vary biologically, it is apparent that human populations differ from one another much less than do populations in other species because we use our cultural, rather than our physical differences to aid us in adapting to various environments.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b10...

Answer 2

Rachel, Race is biologically based but the truth of the matter is that there are certain ideas about race that are social constructs.

Take for instance the phrase "Mexican people are lazy". There is no biological basis for this claim [i.e. no "Laziness" gene that is somehow present in the hispanic population ], it's a claim that is made due to a generalization and a hurtful stereotype. Social scientists are NOT trying to say race isn't biological - it's been very obviously proven that race is.

Social Scientists are trying to say that restrictions and ideas about race are not biologically grounded and are socially constructed by misinformation and most of the time prejudice.

VV Jack D, It's not about political correctness. It's about understanding that difference biologically in skin pigmentation does not automatically infer a difference in mental, physical, or emotional abilities. That has yet to be tested.

Answer 3

To be honest, no it is not.

If you know anything about mDNA, you know that the mDNA between different African groups is as divergent as is DNA between blacks and other "races".

There is only one race, the "Human Race".

Answer 4

yes it is! Its true that we all share identical DNA, but why do some race have features that others don't? Why is it that Nigerians all have straight teeth? Why are southern Asians more susceptible to diabetes? Why are Native Americans more susceptible to small pox? Why do Caucasians have less melanin than other people? Yes I know many of you are probably going to to call me an avid racist, but so what? What if all this information is racist? This is all true isn't it?

Answer 5

No.   There is a biological basis for differences between humans based on recent ancestry.  But races as different "subspecies" of humans? ... not even close.

A subspecies is defined as two distinct groups within a species that are technically able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring (and therefore are the same species) ... but generally do not.   All populations of humans demonstrate a complete willingness to mate with any other humans they come in contact with.  So they are not subspecies.

Secondly, there are no *distinct* groups among humans that we would even call "races."   Yes, someone from Africa looks different from someone from Japan, but in any geographic region between Africa and Japan, we see people of intermediate ethnicity ... there are no "borders" across which people do not travel freely and interbreed ... it is a smooth continuity of features.  The groups are not *distinct.*

>"... there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.”

I'm sure you know that mtDNA (the DNA in mitochondria) is not nuclear DNA, which is the important DNA in which the differences between ethnic groups, and differences between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, resides.

Answer 6

Of course there is a biological reason for skin colour, just as there's a biological cause for hair colour, eye colour, height, whether you're left or right-handed, etc.  However, the biological differences between, say, a white man and a black man are minute.  In fact, there is just as much variation between two subsets of the same race (the Japanese and the Chinese, for instance) as there is between two members of different races.  Humans are unusually homogenized, in terms of DNA -- we have limited genetic variety in our species, compared with some of the other animals out there.

Point is, biological differences or not, we're all equal.  There has never been any real evidence to suggest that any single race is superior to any other.

Answer 7

Here is the thing.  There are ALWAYS genetic differences in every individual with the exception of identical twins.  You are unique and different from your siblings and parents in terms of your DNA.  However, biologists only distinguish differences down to the species level.  A biological concept of species define species as being able to interbreed (yes, s*x) and produce a viable, fertile offspring for the next generation.  We are all one species.  That's why biologists say that there is no such thing as race.  However, to answer your specific question about "race," I have to say that yes, there are genetic differences in people of different ethnic backgrounds.  But WAIT A MINUTE!  there are genetic differences between you and your siblings and your uncle, your aunt, your parents, etc , etc.  So how are you gonna define race then?  Color is just one very obvious phenotype in people from different parts of the world.  Yes, the genetic differences between you and your siblings are less compared to non-family members.  But hey, think about what I said.  We are all different but we are the same too (one species).

Answer 8

Yes, if there is a gene in the human body that makes many types of skin colour than race is biological no matter how much these PC idiots tell you it's not.

Answer 9

let me just hit you with a little article i just read...

"CA005: EVOLUTION IS RACIST.

    

      1. When propperly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typographical thinkning for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their own discinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as sperate and discinct. Darwinism help eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

    2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogenous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race."

care to join us in the 21st century?

i get very (VERY) pale in the winter months.. and very tan in the summer.. does that mean i get closer to a black person genetically? heck no...

you're confusing pigmentation with some kind of idiology that certain people are different (and by effect better/worse) than others..