Is There A Sound Basis For Racial Profiling?

[Jason]

That would make us a 'monotypic' species then.

According to wikipedia:

A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:[citation needed]
- 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.

Since there are easily defined groups of humans which share a particular phenotype, I don't see how any of those three could apply. There are clear dividing lines among separate groups. These groups do not fade imperceptibly into one another. There is gene flow between groups, but it is not substantial. The variation within the species is not random, nor is it individual, nor is it unrelated to genetic transmission.

On the other hand, a polytypic species, which we are, is defined by wikipedia as:

A polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[4] 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 subspecies: they are separate species

Interracial breeding is something of a new thing in the human species so, while possible, until recently (and even now it is comparatively rare) subspecies (or 'races') did not generally interbreed, but certainly could if given the chance. As we determine the taxonomy of other species based largely on differences in phenotype, so we can with humans. Phenotype being an expression of genotype, or heritable traits and morphology if you prefer, it makes sense to classify humans into subspecies. Especially so as modern medicine has made numerous discoveries regarding the susceptibility and proper treatment to and of diseases linked to particular subspecies.

There really is no argument to be had on a scientific basis. The 'no subspecies' 'no races' (the terms are interchangeable, or would be if it weren't for PC trash) debate is purely social. We all want to be equal. We want the old racial biases and stereotypes to just go away so we can live in peace and harmony and all that. Very nice, but it has nothing to do with science.

[NineBerry]

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.

That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other". The illusion of separate groups comes from the fact that people invented ships and people moved are were moved from one place on the globe to another. Europeans might look separate from East Asians. But look at the regions between Europe and East Asia, you will see a constant change there is no clear dividing line. Where people from different parts of the globe come together (like Europeans and Africans and Asians in North America) you might currently see the illusion of a dividing line, but as we are speaking, you have loads of "mixed couples" making sure the illusionary "dividing line" will be gone within a few generations.

There is constant gene flow.

[Jason]

Constant perhaps. A drip can be constant. Significant? No.

[Seth]

My dear Făkünamę, Dr. Robert Ricker has not much to say about penguins because he is a geologist. You will only find his name connected to websites about penguins because he has taken photographs with them on an expedition to the Antarctic.

And his being a geologist precludes him from having a deep understanding of penguin genetics and behavior how, exactly? Did the socialist state functionaries prevent him from studying outside his assigned area of expertise or something?

[rainbow]

Rainbow, I asked you to provide EVIDENCE not proof. You can duck behind the impossibility of providing a PROOF for the non existence of unicorns but that is not what I am asking for. Merely evidence from your side of the debate. Darwin assumed that race (aka varieties) existed in humans and pigeons and just about everything else. If it was good enough for him...

Just some evidence from your side.

You want me to provide evidence for the non-existence of races that you yourself don't even know how to define????

[NineBerry]

My dear Făkünamę, Dr. Robert Ricker has not much to say about penguins because he is a geologist. You will only find his name connected to websites about penguins because he has taken photographs with them on an expedition to the Antarctic.

And his being a geologist precludes him from having a deep understanding of penguin genetics and behavior how, exactly? Did the socialist state functionaries prevent him from studying outside his assigned area of expertise or something?

It precluded him from making any statements on penguins at all. It was Făkünamę, who pulled some random name from some random website to cite as an authority without realising the guy doesn't have any connection to the website and that the nature of the website means it doesn't have any authority on anything either.


Făkünamę questioned my statement that Emperor Penguins are a single species without subspecies, demanding "proof". If some random geologist could have a deep understanding of penguins so could I, couldn't I?

[JimC]

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.

That's what applies to humans. There is constant gene flow. There are no seperate groups. They "fade into each other". The illusion of separate groups comes from the fact that people invented ships and people moved are were moved from one place on the globe to another. Europeans might look separate from East Asians. But look at the regions between Europe and East Asia, you will see a constant change there is no clear dividing line. Where people from different parts of the globe come together (like Europeans and Africans and Asians in North America) you might currently see the illusion of a dividing line, but as we are speaking, you have loads of "mixed couples" making sure the illusionary "dividing line" will be gone within a few generations.

There is constant gene flow.

Absolutely 100% correct.

Our races are not unimportant, but involve absolutely zero potential reproductive isolation.

We are a true biological species.

[Jason]

Um.. yeah. No. Subspecies do not require reproductive isolation. Only that it not be significant. Which is clearly the case, but if you disagree, I think we can agree it merits more attention from the real scientists.

[JimC]

Um.. yeah. No. Subspecies do not require reproductive isolation. Only that it not be significant. Which is clearly the case, but if you disagree, I think we can agree it merits more attention from the real scientists.

Sub-species occupy an odd position in the field of modern taxonomy. In most cases, they are based on clear morphological differences, often expressed in geographically separate areas, and not "tested" by the ability to produce fertile offspring. Many modern taxonomists regard the use of sub-species as rather old fashioned...

The concept is yet another example of using a word to describe an artificial division of something that, in nature, is a continuum.

An utterly monotypic species is at one end of the spectrum, a species divided into very clear morphological subspecies with geographical separation is at the other. In the latter case, evidence of incipient reproductive isolation between the sub-species can be found by careful analysis of the results of crosses in the laboratory; which can be a sign that we have caught a population in the throws of speciation...

We are closer to the monotypic position than that...

[Jason]

Except until recently gene transfer occurred very rarely between populations. For example: poor Irish people tended to have children with other poor Irish people. The population divide has existed along cultural lines (hence the real basis for the shallow definitions of race as cultural). In the past it existed alongside national divides, divisions by colour, divisions by religious ideologies.

Now gene transfer occurs and constantly, yet I contend it is still not significant enough to disqualify homo sapiens sapiens as a polytypic subspecies of homo sapiens. I tried to say as much already.

[NineBerry]

People have always had sex with other people. The nobles shagged the common folk. Certainly without telling anyone. To quote Pratchett, a lot of farmer boys have crown shaped birth marks without having been delivered to the farm in a basket.

Nations come and go. One day your village belongs to a different nation than your neighbouring village, 200 years later they belong to the same nation. Doesn't change the fact that the boys of one village always went to the other village in summer nights to test out their girls.

Whenever there is a war anywhere you have soldiers raping women. Nowadays in "civilized" wars rape may be replaced by prostitution but still a war going on somewhere means gene flow.

The human history is a history of peoples moving to different regions taking their genes with them. In German we call that phenomenon "Völkerwanderung" and it is indeed the most favourite sport of humans even before soccer and cricket.

Finally who are you to judge whether genetic differences between groups of people are significant enough to call them subspecies? Previously you lamented about political ideas telling science what to do. But it is just the other way around. Science has decided there are no human subspecies and it is only your personal preferences that say otherwise. And now you want science to bow to your personal preferences?

[JimC]

Except until recently gene transfer occurred very rarely between populations. For example: poor Irish people tended to have children with other poor Irish people. The population divide has existed along cultural lines (hence the real basis for the shallow definitions of race as cultural). In the past it existed alongside national divides, divisions by colour, divisions by religious ideologies.

Now gene transfer occurs and constantly, yet I contend it is still not significant enough to disqualify homo sapiens sapiens as a polytypic subspecies of homo sapiens. I tried to say as much already.

There were sufficient occasions in the past, always abundantly fertile, to show that the superficial differences were never going to be a reproductive barrier in the slightest...

[Jason]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

[Jason]

Finally who are you to judge whether genetic differences between groups of people are significant enough to call them subspecies? Previously you lamented about political ideas telling science what to do. But it is just the other way around. Science has decided there are no human subspecies and it is only your personal preferences that say otherwise. And now you want science to bow to your personal preferences?

Firstly, science is progressive. It changes. Science doesn't write commandments in stone. Secondly, I'm applying the rules of taxonomy without the special consideration that's been given homo sapiens sapiens - special consideration as in 'humans are special'. It's politically correct trash influencing the public understanding of science. Thirdly, the issue is hardly settled in the scientific community.

So what was your point again?

[charlou]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?

@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

Please post a comprehensive list of current human subspecies. TIA.