What is race?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Most recently, Wilson et al. studied 354 individuals from
8 populatioons deriving from Africa (Bantus, Afro-Caribbeans
and Ethiopians), Europe/Mideast (Norwegians, Ashkenazi
Jews and Armenians), Asia (Chinese) and Pacific Islands
(Papua New Guineans). Their study was based on cluster
analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with
previous stu to type this one out so not quite a cut and paste. But summarises
it better than I could.

That's an incredibly long winded and vague way to say that you think race is indeed a valid biological category.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's an incredibly long winded and vague way to say that you think race is indeed a valid biological category.

The article shows it is relatively simple to genetically define race
on the basis of 4 continental divisions using gene clusters.

It then goes on to show the use of such a categorisation in biomedicine.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
The article shows it is relatively simple to genetically define race
on the basis of 4 continental divisions using gene clusters.

It then goes on to show the use of such a categorisation in biomedicine.

Does this imply that every person on this Earth belong to one genetic group and one alone?

If not - Is it possible to see how much a person belong to each race?

In any case - What's the use of it?

Do you say that the human species can be divided to four races, and four races only?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Does this imply that every person on this Earth belong to one genetic group and one alone?

If not - Is it possible to see how much a person belong to each race?

In any case - What's the use of it?

Do you say that the human species can be divided to four races, and four races only?

Wilson et al study showed 4 out of 354 individuals, it's actually 5.
African, Caucasian(Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander
(for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native
American.


- Does this imply that every person on this Earth belong to one genetic group and one alone?

Yes, it shows that every person on this Earth that is not of mixed race
belongs to one of these specific races.
A more recent survey on US populations showed a distinct and non-overlapping
clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples.
Showing that these correlations also hold true for categorising variations
between those of mixed race.

edit. Please read last paragraph of previous post
'Identical treatment is not equal treatment' for the biomedical point of
classifying race.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Wilson et al study showed 4 out of 354 individuals, it's actually 5.
African, Caucasian(Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander
(for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native
American.


- Does this imply that every person on this Earth belong to one genetic group and one alone?

Yes, it shows that every person on this Ea ...[text shortened]...
'Identical treatment is not equal treatment' for the biomedical point of
classifying race.

Why do you think it's 5? Is that what the research says? I thought it said 4 races.

Never mind, I see your link claims 5 races.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Most recently, Wilson et al. studied 354 individuals from
8 populatioons deriving from Africa (Bantus, Afro-Caribbeans
and Ethiopians), Europe/Mideast (Norwegians, Ashkenazi
Jews and Armenians), Asia (Chinese) and Pacific Islands
(Papua New Guineans). Their study was based on cluster
analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with
previous stu ...[text shortened]... to type this one out so not quite a cut and paste. But summarises
it better than I could.

This is the abstract of your link:

A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic
research. Some claim ‘no biological basis for race’ while others advocate a ‘race-neutral’ approach,
using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We
provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and
genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.

Why are they advocating the use of self-reported race instead of genetic clustering?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This is the abstract of your link:

A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic
research. Some claim ‘no biological basis for race’ while others advocate a ‘race-neutral’ approach,
using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We
provide an ...[text shortened]... ity.

Why are they advocating the use of self-reported race instead of genetic clustering?

Because genetic clustering has shown that self-identified race and ethnicity are usually
pretty accurate. I imagine that human perception acts in a similar way to GC in that it
takes and compares several points of reference rather than just one or two.

This goes some way to highlighting that our own sense of racial identity is consistent
with a scientific underpinning. Using generic numeric comparisms techniques to
classify humans has it's shortcomings in that it serves no purpose and nobody but
politically correct banner wavers can relate to it.

The dictionary definition of race in a biological sense is based on phenotypes. This makes
perfect sense to me and I challenge anybody to show me that the degree of genetic
separation is in any known way scalable to the phenotype.