What is race?

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course it's not too much to ask. Personally, I use the word race to describe them.

I just accept that a biologist might say that such phenotypical variations are not enough to justify another taxonomic division. Other species apparently present such degree of phenotypical variations and it's not considered necessary to create such divisions, so why should they do so for humans?

I mean in a biological sense. Science is a language to describe observations
so I'm looking for a scientific word that describes this phenomenon.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I mean in a biological sense. Science is a language to describe observations
so I'm looking for a scientific word that describes this phenomenon.

I have the feeling you which to imply that science is politically correct to the point of ignoring this. That's not true, in my opinion. Check this out, for example:

http://www.genome.gov/26023283

Edit 2: Or perhaps something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry-informative_marker

Originally posted by Palynka
I have the feeling you which to imply that science is politically correct to the point of ignoring this. That's not true, in my opinion. Check this out, for example:

http://www.genome.gov/26023283

Edit 2: Or perhaps something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry-informative_marker

Thanks Palynka, some good content in those links.

I'm not trying to say science is too politically correct. I have utmost
confidence that science, as a tool for describing measurements is
entirely equipped to label something as mundane and commonplace
as the difference between two groups of obvisously disimilar characteristics.

I just don't know what the term is, that's all.

Highly recommended viewing:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Originally posted by Rank Materialist
Highly recommended viewing:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Just to get this confirmed then. Can race still be used in a biological
sense? This is the entry for race from dictionary.com :

3. people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock; "some biologists doubt that there are important genetic differences between races of human beings"
4. (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species [syn: subspecies]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

It says some biologists have this belief that is some biologists.
Those are most likely the biologists that are capable of performing infinitesimal protein folding calculations in their heads and predicting the
exact changes that base pair alterations make. I bow down to these people, I mean Gods.

The definition also seems to emphasise geographic isolation. Now if
we are describing traits that aren't geographically isolated, I would
imagine we would use a term like 'not geographically isolated' or something
similar.

I've just had 2 threads deleted because using 'race' in the biological
sense was construed as offensive. I wasn't aware that these some biologists had such influence. Well, they are Gods I suppose.

As it stands I will continue to make new threads that are based on words taken from a dictionary and aren't moronic.
If you have a problem with my threads, I suggest you go bake yourself under your green sky.

I don't know if there exists such a thing as a scientific consensus or official science dictionary. I suspect that the term 'face' is used in a biological sense differently by different scientist. However when a term like that is used scientifically one must specify roughly how specific it is. For example is a sub-species a group that looks different, looks significantly different, has greater than a given amount of DNA unique to it? etc. In its most generic use, one could say that if any given gene is only found in a given group of individuals and that group is within a geographic region and that all individuals in that geographic region have that gene then the group is a subspecies or race. However I feel that it is more common to use the word 'variety' for smaller differences and 'subspecies' or 'race' for larger differences.

"some biologists doubt that there are important genetic differences between races of human beings"
That is clearly nonsense. There is no consensus on what 'important' means but human race is clearly important medically, and even for other reasons such as marketing hair products etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know if there exists such a thing as a scientific consensus or official science dictionary. I suspect that the term 'face' is used in a biological sense differently by different scientist. However when a term like that is used scientifically one must specify roughly how specific it is. For example is a sub-species a group that looks different, loo mportant medically, and even for other reasons such as marketing hair products etc.

No, the scientific 'dictionary' is continually up for review. That is what science
is all about. However, in order for us to redefine the 'dictionary' we have to
use the current terminologies that we have.
In the case of race in a biological context, we have historically classified
human races by observable heritable phenotypes within geographicslly isolated
groups. Modern genetics has then allowed us to compare the degree of
similarity between DNA on a mathematical basis. However, we are still not
much closer to understanding how even the smallest base pair changes
translate into phenotypes. This would require mastering protein folding and in situ
computer modelling techniques. Both still a long way away ( a
little closer with thanks to the PS3 ).

Comparing races based on degrees of similarity of DNA base pairs
should taken with a pinch of salt as rather than adding to scientific definition, it
can distract from any formal taxonomy. Until such a time that we are able to
provide a concrete understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved,
we should stick with the definition that we have.

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."

The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The botanical term would be "variety", or possibly "genotype".

Or race.

SOCIALLY ACQUIRED HOST-SPECIFIC MIMICRY AND THE EVOLUTION OF HOST RACES IN HORSFIELD'S BRONZE-CUCKOO CHALCITES BASALIS.

Langmore NE, Maurer G, Adcock GJ, Kilner RM.

School of Botany & Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, 0200, Australia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18419751?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
OK, basically what I'm trying to do here is find a word that characterises
the geographically isolated phenotypical variations that we see in the world.

I'm not trying to categorise where and when and why those variations occur,
just simply find a word that describes them. Is that too much to ask??

The problem is that they are not as geographically isolated as many people think. People get around and will screw anything.

However, I did read recently that the race of a person can be determined from only DNA.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The problem is that they are not as geographically isolated as many people think. People get around and will screw anything.

However, I did read recently that the race of a person can be determined from only DNA.

The idea of defining race entirely on the basis of DNA is an
interesting one.
There are races of chimpanzees with much higher DNA variance between
them than their human counterparts that show little or no variance in
phenotypes. Then there are single base changes in humans that lead to
highly visible changes (skin pigmentation) and disease tolerance (sickle
cell anemia).

As I've said in my previous posts, I find it very difficult to accept that
biology, as a science, chooses to readily reject observations made on the
phenotypes of a species in favour of comparing the elemental code of
an, as yet, unknown mechanism.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Thanks Palynka, some good content in those links.

I just don't know what the term is, that's all.

I believe you're being disingenuous. There is no way you can tell me you don't know what "race" means, unless you're 5 years old.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I believe you're being disingenuous. There is no way you can tell me you don't know what "race" means, unless you're 5 years old.

Consider these 2 scenarios :

Scenario 1 :
2 different car manufacturers are given identical specifications
on what a car should look like and how it should behave.
The results are 2 cars that look and behave identically but are made
differently.

Scenario 2 :
A car manufacturer makes 2 vehicles to 2 very different specifications.
The outcome is that they look and behave very differently but are made
with the same parts.

If we consider the automobile to be the species.

What I'd now like you to do is match up

'type' and 'manufacturer' with 'variety' and 'race'

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Consider these 2 scenarios :

Scenario 1 :
2 different car manufacturers are given identical specifications
on what a car should look like and how it should behave.
The results are 2 cars that look and behave identically but are made
differently.

Scenario 2 :
A car manufacturer makes 2 vehicles to 2 very different specifications.
The outcome is ...[text shortened]... now like you to do is match up

'type' and 'manufacturer' with 'variety' and 'race'

Can't do that, the analogy doesn't make sense and there's no correlation.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Can't do that, the analogy doesn't make sense and there's no correlation.

Let me break it down for you :

Scenario 1 :
2 different car manufacturers are given identical specifications
on what a car should look like and how it should behave.
The results are 2 cars that look and behave identically but are made
differently.
This is the analogy of the races of chimpanzees that are phenotypically
identical but genetically classed as separate races

Scenario 2 :
A car manufacturer makes 2 vehicles to 2 very different specifications.
The outcome is that they look and behave very differently but are made
with the same parts.
This is the analogy of the single nucleotide change that creates a
very noticible change in appearance and/or function

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Let me break it down for you :

Scenario 1 :
2 different car manufacturers are given identical specifications
on what a car should look like and how it should behave.
The results are 2 cars that look and behave identically but are made
differently.
This is the analogy of the races of chimpanzees that are phenotypically
identical but genetically c ...[text shortened]... single nucleotide change that creates a
very noticible change in appearance and/or function

"Races" were never entirely separate from one another. It's more like there are several variations of each part for a car, and any variation of a part can link up with any variation for the other part giving us a near infinite number of types of cars. However most cars that are driven in a certain region, if they don't leave that region, will tend to be equipped with parts that suit that region...but there's no line saying "tire variant A is the same 'kind of part' as windscreen variant B" just because both might be useful in the desert and therefore often found together there. And, of course, we need to consider that different parts are invented in different places at different times, which affects distribution.

Scenario 2 is a poor analogy, therefore, because it assumes that there are two separate cars, with two and only two variants of each part, and you don't even imply that they're interchangeable between the two models. In fact there are no "models" - only part types (traits, or genotypes in the analogy)