From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 December 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

This website is an embarassment and arguing with the regulars is a waste of time[edit]

I've demonstrated clearly that one of the main sources referenced here made a serious error. His one of two main points against the race concept was based on his (to be generous) misinterpretation of a morphological separability rule as applying to Fst. This level of incompetence (again being generous) is utterly pathetic. This point was even bolded by the writer of this article. The writer of this article then agreed with me it was wrong. Was it removed? No, a small note was put in saying the bolded nonsense was incorrect. Is this a joke? There is no point debating here. The lies will not be corrected. The only consolation is that everybody knows this place has become a dishonest parody of a website. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As Fuzzy cat said: you've been debunked on everything else (and have no response) so latch onto a minor detail that no one even cares about. No one cares about it because as has been explained to you the 0.25 statistic is from *Wright*, not Smith et al. So the fact Templeton confused two source is irrelevant. You are the worst liar here, above you quote Darwin when he's saying the complete opposite to you... Are you now intentionally goofing around? (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been debunked on anything else. It's just that race deniers bring up a new fallacy when proven wrong on any point. They seem to have no shame in being wrong about everything. What's the point in addressing other points when you won't ever admit it when you're wrong? Wright used 25% Fst in a completely different context to signify very great differentiation. He never said it invalidated taxa. Darwin also agrees classification is based on the same principle from higher categories through to individual differences, and there is no cutoff other than the grain of resolution the observer focuses on. What do you call it when the liar calls you a liar? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
"Look, if you allow for sufficiently arbitrary and meaningless classification, race is real" -someone who seriously thinks they're making a point. Race realists, are without exception, so angry about arbitrary distinctions being dismissed as arbitrary, scientifically useless, and unnecessary.
It's not our fault you've invested your identity in your skin color, get a better hobby. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Dave

You're lying again though. Its impossible for Darwin to not have set quantitative thresholds since he distinguished subspecies and varieties; he clearly said the latter were "less" distinctive. Can you read? This is the opposite to what you have said. Wright and Mayr also set thresholds, see Mayr's (1969) quote above. It is you who never admits you are wrong. I couldn't care less about the 0.25 Fst threshold in Templeton, my point was that a threshold is always set and I provided two examples: Templeton (1998) and Zink (2004). I never said those were the only ones, and other taxonomists use different cut-offs. Regardless, look how many sources falsify you, here's another important study "Taxonomic Considerations in Listing Subspecies Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act" (2006):

Nevertheless, the critical need to resolve this debate for ESA listings led us to propose that minimal biological criteria to define disjunct subspecies (legally or taxonomically) should include the discreteness and significance criteria of distinct population segments (as defined under the ESA).

Conclusion: there is always quantitative thresholds or significance criteria used, otherwise populations (or groups of populations) do not pass as subspecies. Instead they are just demes. Taxonomy takes no note of demes because they aren't considered significant, however population genetics & forensic anthropology does. (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You're just playing a stupid semantic game with "demes" and "subspecies". It doesn't really matter what name we give infrasubspecific categories in humans. What matters is that it's biologically valid to do that. The usual term is race. (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So the Amish are a race? Show me a single biologist who says this. Even if we call breeding populations/demes as races (something I've long pointed out is just semantics), the point you've missed is you end up with completely different divisions or categories to the ones you propose: "Negroids", "Mongoloids", "Caucasoids", etc., are not breeding populations but arbitrary large aggregates of many demes. Concerning the latter, how many putative YazidisWikipedia are married to Manx peopleWikipedia? Yet you would arbitrarily put these two breeding populations into the same group, when they live thousands of miles apart, have different gene frequencies, and have completely separate cultures, customs, religion etc. Bizarrely you then turn around and claim doing this is somehow nationalism. You're insane. (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if the Amish are a race. If they are more ancestrally similar to each other than anybody else then they are a race. I suspect they are a cultural group with some exogamy like Jews. How does this follow from anything I said? How many cats breed with dogs? Yet you arbitrarily put them in the group "mammals". Idiot. (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Both cats and dogs have a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones and mammary glands. Hardly an arbitrary classification. Daev (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It was a sarcastic parody of this idiot's fallacious argument moron. (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Loony-tunes, so if race = "ancestrally similar to each other [than anybody else]" what stops someone lumping chimpanzees and humans into a race? All living organisms are related ancestrally/genetically to some degree. You seem to be parodying the race concept. No biologist claims race is mere ancestry or genetic similarity. You never provided a modern biologist who says this, its just a made up definition only you use. (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Because the word race isn't used for categories higher than species moron. (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you need to put a moratorium on the use of words like idiot and moron. Daev (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You said race = relative genetic similarity/ancestry. You said nothing at all about reproductive isolation (that separates humans from chimpanzees.) Well done for contradicting yourself... suddenly now you're using additional criteria (reproductive isolation) to define race, something you denied in your earlier comments. Regardless, human genetic variation (between populations) is clinal, so there is nothing stopping someone from lumping two groups on different continents together into the same race e.g. from the Human Genome Diversity Project - Orcadians (20000 individuals) from Orkney Islands and Oroqen people (8000 individuals) from Mongolia; I can arbitrarily put these two demes/ethnic groups into a race. But why do this? There is no point which is why I don't do this, furthermore there are reasons not to do this- read the newly written population section on the main page. Population geneticists avoid aggregating demes together. (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Race and indeed all taxa are defined by shared ancestry. I know I said nothing about isolation, why are you bringing it up. Species is a special case which tends to be separated out. Are you denying subspecies? Now you are changing the subject to clines. Indeed this goes round in circles, hypocrite, you keep changing the subject to a new race denial fallacy when cornered on any point. Could you lump South Asians and East Asians into a race? Why do you think a you can divide a continuum by randomly putting separated points together? You divide it into sections. Just the same lame sophistry. You're nothing but a liar and a troll. (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You missed the simple point I was making: dividing a continuum is arbitrary. Anyone can make any number of divisions/clusters i.e. aggregates of demes. This means someone can arbitrarily group all demes together from the Indian subcontinent into an "Indian race" (despite there being hundreds of demes/ethnic groups from India). Further, if someone wanted they could aggregate all demes/ethnic groups (again hundreds) from China, Japan and Korea, into an "East Asian race", and then make an even broader division, combining the "Indian race" with the "East Asian race" (containing thousands of demes/ethnic groups.) All this is though arbitrary, pointless and not science. The Human Genome Diversity Project does not aggregate demes/ethnic groups into continents or subcontinents; it has 52 population samples, and these are never divided into broad continental divisions. There's not for example a "European race" e.g. Orcadians and Sardinians are not clustered together. The reason for this is explained on the main article.

I have mentioned the Human Genome Diversity Project now on the main article. I can also use the FORDISC population reference samples as used in bioarcheology and forensic anthropology. None of these are aggregated/clustered. For example, concerning Europe as a continent: there are three FORDISC samples as archeological breeding populations: Norse (medieval Vikings from Oslo, Norway), Zalavar (9th – 11th century Avar-Magyars, Hungary) and Berg (19th century Austrians). These are never combined into a "European race". There is no latter, the only people saying otherwise are pan-European/white nationalists. Pan-Europeanists aren't even ethnic nationalists since they oppose individual ethnic/cultural nationalisms within Europe and for example support mass immigration from Poland into UK like Richard Spencer who is in favour of the European Union. The Brexit vote actually upset a lot of these Alt-Right idiots. (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No one cannot aggregate East Asians and South Asians into a race because they do not share ancestry versus Europeans. You're talking about "demes" defined by location and I'm talking about race defined by ancestry. So you are just ignoring my definition and endless!y attacking a strawman. Whether some sampling group aggregate their samples is irrelevant. Race is a multi level concept and one can support European and local nationalism at the same time. One can support both European and British nationalism. (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Demes are breeding populations defined as groups of interbreeding individuals (where mating predominantly occurs inside the group). These are the "units" of population genetics since over time allele frequencies change (i.e. evolution); I have no idea what your definition of race is: its probably taken from Lord of the Rings. Its not science. That aside, there is a smooth gradient of allelic distributions across human populations - geographical distance explains most of the genetic variation. As though pointed out these genetic or phenotypic differences are quantitatively minimal and too insignificant for taxonomy or conservation biology to take note of. Taxonomy takes no notice of demes unless they show high genetic differentiation, meaning they are subspecies: see Maglo et al. 2016: "a taxon of organisms may be said to have an objective independent biological existence in Darwinian classification if... has reached a degree of genetic differentiation deemed taxonomically meaningful in system biology" (also see the other criteria.)
Working with your arbitrary divisions: South Asians plot genetically intermediate between West Asians and East Asians. So you could lump them with either. Recent studies have come up with useful ancestry components, and there are many,: the population history of the Indian subcontinent is not just ANI and ASI, but ATB, i.e. "Ancestral Tibeto-Burman" and at least 3 others. If you look at recent studies you clearly see this ATB ancestral/genetic component as a cline strongest in the east and weakest in the west of India, while the ANI component, the reverse. On PCA's you also see ATB closer to East Asians, but ANI closer to West Asians. These studies on Indian population history just reinforce my view about clines and why races don't exist. You probably have never even looked at this data.
On your final point: the answer is clearly no. "European nationalism" (an oddity) is at complete odds with British, or rather English ethno-cultural nationalism (I say English, because ethnic nationalism hardly exists in Scotland since they have so few immigrants, also the fact most ethnic English identify as English and not British). The idea of European nationalism is American since "White Americans" are a melting pot of different ethnicities and cultures from Europe, hence Americans invented white nationalism/pan-Europeanism. This ideology is not applicable to Europe because each country retains its own national & ethnic identity, language, traditions, culture and so on. There is no such thing as a pan-European culture and the idea of this from Richard Spencer ("Hail Europe!") is laughable, furthermore ethnic groups from the south of Europe visibly have different pigmentation to northerners. There's also the fact ethnic groups and countries across Europe have been fighting and killing each other for centuries, so the idea of a European nationalism is absurd. Pan-European nationalists like Richard Spencer oppose Brexit because as Americans from mixed European cultures/ethnicities they cannot understand the fact British or English identify with their own ethnicity ad culture and not as "European". Spencer even moaned about UKIP campaigning to stop mass immigration of Polish works into UK then described himself as "pro-EU." Anyway is this where you hilariously tell me you actually care about British or English nationalism? If so, why do you sit on pan-European American-based sites like Daily Stormer and Stormfront? I'm familiar with your barmy views and post history, you've simply never identified with what you call 'local nationalism', your whole bizarre identity is based on "protecting Europe", "European [white] pride" etc. Even look at your silly comments about "white genocide", its only ever "Europeans" you are concerned with; you even called me a "traitor to the European people" (something I don't care about since unlike you I identify as English, not European.) (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
tl;dr (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You're debunked. Run along back to supporting mass Polish immigration into UK like your "pro-EU" hero Richard Spencer. (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No I'm really not. It's just that your never ending Gish Gallop of fallacies, subject changing, lies, and more of the same fallacies is not worth bothering with, especially since you can't seem to format comments properly. I'll leave you with this. Is that a perfect continuum you can divide just however? Or do you see certain concentrations of variation at any points? (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
You're lying as usual by posting the same fallacy. This fallacy is covered on the main article: "clusters of very high genetic similarity can be -- purposefully or accidentally -- "created" via inadequate sampling of intermediate populations. In this case, three "races" are obtained (blue, purple, red) even though the overall system shows no such breaks" (Maglo et al. 2016). Re-read the emphasis added if you're too slow to understand. If you had used hundreds more population samples rather than cherry-picking so few, any spaces/discontinuities on the PCA plot you posted would disappear, in other words they are not real, but computational artefacts. This has been explained to you for the past 5 years: the problem is you're a compulsive liar who won't admit when wrong - that's why I likened you to a creationist, but a flat earther would probably be more accurate especially given you're a crackpot who denies the Holocaust. (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
What nonsense. This is a very comprehensive sampling of populations and there are none that would "fill in the gaps". If so, what are they? What population would fill in the scattering of the low density admixed Ethiopians between Negroid Maasai and Caucasoid Egyptians? There are none. Look at the shape of the distribution. Major clusters are orthogonal to each other. No other sampling would straighten that. This website is fake science. Sad! (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be straightened to be a continuum- geographical adjacent population samples touch or overlap each other with enough samples and so there are no discontinuities. Your plot doesn't use enough samples. For example, between the Egyptian and Ethiopian samples where are Sudanese Arabs, Nubians, Beja? You deliberately miss out sizable geographical areas (Sudan, Eritrea etc.) between those countries. Fake science indeed. (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You're asking for the transitional fossils? Get a map. Look at this. See that the points sampled are evenly distributed. See that no amount of extra intermediate points can account for the observed clustering. Look at the distance from Kenya to Egypt. Is Kenya midway between South Africa and Egypt on a genetic plot? No, Kenyans and South Africans are tightly clustered. No amount of "intermediate points" will change that. Your argument is false. (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What an idiot. If you actually included the indigenous demes/ethnic groups of South Africa (Khoikhoi and San) they would plot at one end of the African cline, with Bantu-speaker samples from Kenya (Kikuyu, Kamba, Luhya etc.) in the middle, with Egypt at the opposite extreme. Instead your South African samples are Bantu-speaking tribes. Look up the Bantu expansion, these groups only moved into South Africa relatively recently (between 1500 and 500 years BP). (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Genetic clusters of populations are computational artefacts, not real[edit]

"Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel, they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America. Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters. Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)." - Morning, Ann. (2014). "Does Genomics Challenge the Social Construction of Race?" Sociological Theory. Vol. 32(3) 189–207

"Suspicion is also warranted by the fact that as geographically intermediate regions are added to the data, the genetic markers used to identify continental clusters become less powerful, in which case 'the inclusion of such samples demonstrates geographic continenty in the distribtuion of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race" (Bamshad et al. 2003)." - Glasgow, Joshua. (2009). A Theory of Race. Routledge. p. 104 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that in the plot I posted the sampling is comprehensive, and includes mixed races like Ethiopians and Hazara. There is nothing "in between" that was "left out". It's a lie. Why do low density populations like Ethiopians scatter between clusters while all of the high density populations in West Eurasia or SS Africa cluster tightly, despite geography? My guess is you need to look at a map. (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
All populations are mixed. If you think not, show me a population that is 100% homogenous genetically. None exist. So calling a population "mixed race" is pretty foolish considering you are mixed, as is everyone. You've also been debunked about the plot above. (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
No taxa in any of biology is "100% homogenous genetically" whatever that means. All taxa all derived from common ancestors and share genes. "Mixed" is relative depending on what level in the hierarchy you are looking at. What an idiot. Are you done with cycling through all of the lame Marxist fallacies now or would you like to change the subject to another one? Here, choose one. (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you even know the basics of evolutionary biology? Speciation occurs by vicariance (i.e. geographical separation of breeding populations) that results over time in reproductive isolation. How on earth do two populations "share genes" if they cannot reproduce, or they are not spatially in the same area to do so? By magic? Subspecies and species are genetically homogenous because there is no gene flow, or if there is- it is strictly limited to parapatric hybrid/contact zones of intergradation. But as Fuzzy Cat pointed out, there is no interbreeding outside of those narrow hybridization areas, so the subspecies on either side remain homogenous, retaining a high degree of genetic differentiation. This is explained by Smith et al. 1997, a source you quoted, but never read properly.
And you're linking to a crazy pseudo-science article that claims at the top (in a photo) that two humans are different species. Rightpedia is a website set up to make nationalists look like imbeciles; ANTIFA/Marxists must love you.- (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Lol you think species don't share genes. What a retard. (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Species are reproductively isolated. So they don't share genes. You clearly are a Troll if you think two species that cannot reproduce share genes between them. And look up autapomorphies; species & subspecies have unique derived traits i.e. only present in a single taxon. According to you however this is a "straw man". You need mental help. (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
When I say "share genes" I mean "have genes in common". Do species not have genes in common? Are they "100% homogenous genetically"? (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Its clear by "100% homogenous genetically" I mean mutational differences. When two populations are isolated, new mutations do not spread. Human populations however do not have any autapomorphies i.e. unique derived traits limited to a single population. (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No "100% homogenous genetically" means "100% homogenous genetically", not "not sharing recent mutations since divergence". Even assuming your new goalpost shift your stupid ad hoc requirement clearly denies any subspecies. What a charlatan. What a liar. (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a straw man you made up. Its clear from my posts the context was isolation mechanisms (prezygotic such as geographical isolation and postzygotic such as reproductive isolation, both I mentioned); I was talking therefore about Genetic divergenceWikipedia, i.e. mutational differences. Populations over time that are isolated are homogenous because mutations do not spread via gene flow, hence unique derived traits/autapomorphies. No single human population however has a unique derived trait because there is recurrent gene flow: there are no human subspecies. (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

BoN(s)/Dave is a Rightpedia and former Metapedia admin[edit]

Please stop, both of you. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki vs Reality[edit] (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You certainly do love that graph. Feel free to cite the paper it's from and give a brief summary. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 08:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to reality: (Tishkoff et al. 2009) If you use enough population samples you see this. There are no genetic discontinuities. You only create them as computational artefacts through sampling error (i.e. not enough samples) and the above PCA plot misses out samples from large geographical regions, no wonder you see clusters, but these aren't real. This is explained in detail on the main article. Its also been explained to the BoN to the past 5 years. (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The PCA you present is laughable and far less informative than my more recent one. They basically dump a load of data on a small 2D plot which obviously just creates a blob. If the axes are extended so any discontinuities can be seen you see the huge gaps among eg. Ethiopians. Where are the Ethiopians on your plot? You don't know because it's a meaningless blob. Even that PCA shows orthogonal variation between Africans, Caucasoids and Mongoloids. It's hilarious you demand my plots include "Sudanese Arabs, Nubians, Beja" while presenting this crap. What a hypocrite! (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

BoN ignoramus messing up talk page[edit]

On Talk:Racialism. He's now claiming that species don't share genes after demanding that races must be "100% homogenous [sic] genetically". Is that right, species don't share genes? Is this the level you want this website to be dragged down to for your precious Marxist ideology? (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing two uses of the word "share". BON is using it as a verb -- to "share genes" is to reproduce with another species. In this sense, all reproductively isolated species do not share genes, even if their genetics are highly similar. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice the smoking gun — how Fuzzy FAILED to refute the accusation that we're all a bunch of indoor-slippers-wearing Cultural Marxists?!? Why, he's so Red, the very accusation didn't even strike him as odd! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Dude, the funny thing is I'm probably more right-wing than the BoN. What I don't though do is pseudo-science hence I came to reject racialism 5 years ago. The pseudo-scientific stuff about race just demonises ethno/cultural nationalism(s) and makes us look like imbeciles ("race realism!", its the jooz!", "white genocide!" etc. its laughable). Politically many nationalist parties have modernised and distanced themselves from this nonsense in recent years; the Front National for example. Even if everything the BoN said is true - which it isn't- how can racialism be implemented? Politically its toxic and not electorally palatable, no one will vote for a political party that bases their views on "white race" that the mass public regards as baloney. So how does the BoN think he is achieving anything? Just sit on internet forums spouting racialism; the "white race" will be saved by keyboard warriors? Everything they are doing is counterproductive. (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Good post! Adding one further difficulty to the ones you already list — even if implemented somehow, racialism still wouldn't "exist" in the real world (in the ontological sense). I mean, even some wild scenario (involving sudden, massive popular adherence to racialist ideas) would merely amount to a societally gargantuan case of mistaking the map for the territory. I.e., racialism still would not describe things that actually exist.
While the psychological impetus to racialist thoughtWikipedia may persistently haunt and addle the minds of men, the simple fact remains — our shallow sorting 'of people and people' just isn't to be mistaken for some 'merely cruder' road to ultimately accurate biological insight.
On the contrary; the actual science of genetics — a far cry in its very method from any proto-phrenology involving cranial measuring calipers — paints us not just an objectively correct picture of our remarkably close kinship, but it does so with a lot more grace and nuance (and, pun intended, with a much more colorful palette) than could our apprehensive eyes and agitatable hypothalamuses ever manage in its stead. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Could you be any more pretentious? You are saying that classifications (which are relationships between things) "don't exist in the real world"? Obviously.
In fact no taxonomy is extra-mental since they refer to relationships between entities, the relationships having no extra-mental existence in themselves.
You are saying categories don't capture all variation? Obviously.
Race is a first level operationalization of human genetic variation.
Does the word "mammals" describe all variation among mammals? Are mammals a social construct? Your laughable sophistry (mixed in with some strawmen and lies about "calipers" and "remarkably close kinship" based on nothing but egalitarian fantasies) could be applied to any classification in biology. (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In the context of "100% homogenous genetically" which is applied nowhere in biology other than to race by Marxist charlatans like Jonathan Marks and Rationalwiki "sharing genes" obviously means "having genes in common". Or perhaps you were arguing subspecies don't exist? But then you all know this and are liars. (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

AutapomorphiesWikipedia are Marxism? {Troll (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Finding a fancy word for your "all members of a taxon must share a single trait" strawman doesn't mean that this is ever part of of a classification scheme. It's trivia and never applied in phylogenetics. Find a non human taxonomy based on a "single trait".
From your WP link:
Because autapomorphies are only present in a single taxon, they do not convey information about relationship. Therefore, autapomorphies are not useful to infer phylogenetic relationships. (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

John Fuerst[edit]

John Fuerst has showed up on his talk page; I noticed he uses most of the same fallacies as the BoN above:

I think some of these fallacies can be covered on the main article.Welliver (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)



Basically after this we can add his white nationalist and anti-semitic politics.Welliver (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake I will copy this over to John Fuerst's talk page.Welliver (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, this article has been hijacked/created by SJWs, hence its lack of clarity. I mostly just ignore it, like various other SJW-realted topics here. I think the general idea is that there is no clear distinction between each "race", which in its own seems reasonable enough. I feel like the "pseudoscience" part is pushed a little too hard, for instance its inclusion in the pseudoscience nav template despite nobody knowing what it actually is. —Kazitor, pending 02:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I was just looking through google ngram sources. Based on my brief review of "racialism"/"racialist" the term was for the most part of the 20th century used to describe a sociopolitical worldview, much as the terms "communism" and "national socialism" do. It didn't seem describe a set of empirical views about groups called "races". So going by common 20th century usage, one could be a "racialist" without affirming any of the said empirical views of rationalwiki-racialists. And one can be a rationalwiki-racialist without being a common 20th century usage (ideological) "racialist".
Yes, it seems more or less empirically accurate to say that human "races" blur into one another. I doubt, though, that most historical race-theorists argued otherwise; and I am sure that most contemporary ones don't maintain that there are clear distinctions. There definitely were and are false views about what were and are said to be races, but I don't think a belief in clear cut boundaries was generally one of them. Whatever, I saw the link on RW's front page and decided to check it out. The wikipedia's article is also confusing -- but at least it's a lot shorter. Huckleberry Hound (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I just ignore the articles like this. No sense in getting caught up in pointless arguments over them. —Kazitor, pending 12:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I just wanted a little clarification. The dictionary definitions and Wikipedia entry are confusing too -- it seems to generally be an ill-defined notion -- so one can expect only so much.--Huckleberry Hound (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This has already been addressed countless times (view the archives of this talk-page...) The RationalWiki definition of race is in use by standard taxonomy, i.e. subspecies. By this definition- human races have been falsified since genetic variation between human populations has been measured quantitatively and it is minimal (less than 10% of genetic variation is between populations, 90% within populations etcetc); subspecies require a high threshold of genetic differentiation and humans don't come close. "Race realists" as pseudo-scientists cannot accept science has falsified race and so move the goalposts of falsifiability (similar to creationists, flat-earthers and so on) hence all these trivialised and nonsensical re-definitions of race on the internet that try to deny that subspecies require a quantitative genetic criteria, so for example according to most "race realists", two populations that are virtually identical are somehow still "races": they set no genetic threshold. Asgardian (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Why are the past talk-page discussions deleted? That seems strange, but maybe that is common practice here.
You didn't answer the question. For example, saying that "racialists" are/were people who believe in separate human zoological subspecies, doesn't clarify if "racialists" per definition believe(d) that "racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples", as the zoological rank of subspecies obviously doesn't stipulate anything about behavioral differences. That is, 1-3 are independent claims. One can affirm any without the others. So I am asking if rational-wiki "racialists" need to affirm all three or just any of the above.
Imagine someone who asserted that human ancestry group differences are strongly linked to behavior yet who tactically denied that there are human subspecies: "No, of course I don't believe that any set of human populations necessitates the rank of subspecies ... but, nonetheless, I am pretty sure that the Negroid population is profoundly intellectually and morally inferior to the Caucasoid one and that we should take this fact into consideration when it comes to social policy." That sounds kinda "racialist" to me in the common 20th century sense! Is it in the Rationalwiki sense? Now imagine instead that someone said: "Of course, there are human subspecies, but the differences between them are small and this distinction doesn't imply much" (e.g., That doesn't sound too ordinary sense racialist. Maybe I wasn't clear as to my original question. Let me try again: What are the necessary and sufficient beliefs that qualify someone as a "racialist"?--Huckleberry Hound (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing you haven't really read our discussion; there's no need to convince us that "race" as a biological concept is meaningless. —Kazitor, pending 22:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
No, they are arguing that "race" has a very specific, precise meaning: "subspecies". This allows them to argue that there are no human races. I think philosophers of science generally agree that it is an ambiguous term.Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Huckleberry, 1-3 are actually related. So for example you cannot have large genetic differentiation without allopatry/parapatry, i.e. geographical isolation. The spatial boundaries of subspecies are clear-cut and non-arbitrary. And geographical isolation leads to behavioural differences. All these things rely on pre-zygotic isolation mechanisms. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about. You're another delusional 'race realist'.Asgardian (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC
Can you recognize the logical distinction between 1, 2, and 3 - especially between 1,3 and 2. See my comment below. I pointed to Jerry Coyne. Is he a racialist or not (affirms 3, is agnostic on 2, denies 1) per your ambiguous characterization? As for 1 and 3, no because of primary and secondary intergradation. As for being a "race realist," if you equate that with being a "subspecies-ist," I clearly am not, since I would only maintain that by very liberal standards or concepts could some human lineages be ranked as subspecies. Mind you that by some of the more promiscuous species concepts, some major human lineages might have relatively recently -- e.g., prior to that age of discovery -- qualified as different species.Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) "humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories that are both broad (each category should include many humans, such as entire continents) and clearly-defined (the categorization method should rarely misidentify someone's "race")" (2) "races are substantially different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples" (3) "that human populations are substantially different from each other to a degree which necessitates biological classification below the species level"

You didn't answer the question. For example, saying that "racialists" are/were people who believe in separate human zoological subspecies, doesn't clarify if "racialists" per definition believe(d) that "racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples", as the zoological rank of subspecies obviously doesn't stipulate anything about behavioral differences. That is, 1-3 are independent claims. One can affirm any without the others. So I am asking if rational-wiki "racialists" need to affirm all three or just any of the above.
@ huckleberry do you think race has different intelligence? — Unsigned, by: Tetra / talk / contribs
Some different races of dogs and horses might. I doubt different races of strawberries and tulips do. But what if I affirmed that different races of dogs did indeed differ in intelligence or other behavioral traits, but denied that they should be ranked as subspecies -- because, for one, they were domestic animals -- would I qualify as a racialist? Or just a confused person for not concurring with your local definition of "race". But, then, what if I simply dropped the term "race" and adopted some euphemism, like "ancestry population". Could I be a racialist in any sense? Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Dogs and horse don't have races, they have breeds. Read the for dummies explanation. If you can't be bothered to know what basic terminology means, go and pick up a biology textbook. Read every page of that biology textbook. A dictionary isn't going to cut it for basic understanding. A dictionary is only a quick overview. Dictionary entries when cited on the internet, are 99% of the time, a thing that only an amateur reads when that amateur wants to argue with people on the internet. And the answer to your question is "no" because dogs and horses don't have races. The breeds only differ in traits because we, humans, breed them like that. Humans not do have breeds. You cannot use a comparison that does not exist to prove something. ClickerClock (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Pay attention here! My question is whether one might evade the charge of "racialism" (per rationalwiki's definition) by simply adopting a different term and by adopting agnosticism about taxonomic status. A quick google scholar search shows me that some epidemiologists refer to what once would have been called "races" as "ancestry populations," "ancestry groups," or "descent groups". (Some don't even bother to switch the traditional group name, and so speak of e.g., the "'Amerindian' ancestry population"!) Now, were one to posit that, say, the Amerindian "ancestry population" was "inferior" in such and such a manner to the European one, would that be a statement suspect of racialism? Please answer this question! One obviously doesn't need to make any linguistic commitments regarding the term "race" to assert that the e.g., "West Eurasian" "ancestry group", as a whole, has a different temperament than that Sub-Saharan African "ancestry group". Nor does one need to make commitments with respect to taxonomy. (And if one switches out "West Eurasian" with "Caucasoid" and "Sub-Saharan African" with "Negroid" does anything change in this respect?) So, would this be a racialist claim? Notice, there is no claim here about "race". It is assumed, of course that "ancestry group" is a valid "biological construct" and that "West Eurasians" and "Sub-Saharan Africans" pick out ""ancestry groups". Now, in this regard, that reference, below, from Templeton is interesting -- to make the point that "Black" in Brasil means something else, biologically speaking, than "Black" in the US, he cites population genetic research which employs the "ancestry group" construct. He cites, for example, Lao et al. "Evaluating self-declared ancestry of U.S. Americans with autosomal....", who tell us: "The ancestry information provided by the 24 autosomal ASMs was first tested by performing a STRUCTURE analysis with the HGDP-CEPH samples assuming no prior knowledge of the ancestral groups." Since you cite Templeton as an authority, I assume we must agree that "ancestry group" is a valid biological construct and that "West Eurasians" and "Sub-Saharan Africans" are two examples of these, since he agrees -- he must to make his argument! What he argues is that "race" really, truly means something more. Well, his usage is interesting and all, and his linguistic claim may be justifiable in his research domain, but ... none of this addresses the question at hand, which is how to classify someone who asserts e.g., that "descent group" is genetically correlated 'with qualities like strength, speed or intelligence' regardless if there are human races (given some specification of that term). I am getting the feeling that I will not get a clear cut answer. Is it that my question is not clear? Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Your "answer" is already on the main article under "populations". There are multigenerational breeding populations aka ancestry/descent/ethnic groups, but these aren't races. Ancestry groups are covered in the Human Genome Diversity Project, for example there are 51 population samples. What you listed are not ancestry groups; "Basque" or "Orcadian", both HGDP samples, are ancestry groups, but "West Eurasian" or "Sub-Saharan African" are not. And you've clearly never read Templeton, he makes my same point that breeding populations or ancestry groups are local geographically, not broad/continental.Asgardian (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
As I noted, I am not interested in arguing about the proper use of the term "race" -- I am trying to get clarification regarding the meaning of "racialism". You would agree that population geneticists and genetic epidemiologists often refer to groups delineated in terms of descent, which are often broad (varyingly called biogeographic ancestry groups, descent groups, ancestry populations, etc.)? For example, with respect to humans they often speak of "West Eurasians" "East Asians" and "Sub Saharan Africans". Now, some philosophers of biology would take these to be "races", for example Quayshawn Spencer in, if I correctly recall, e.g., "Do Humans Have Continental Populations?" The questions is: Is someone who claims that there are significant socially important behavioral differences between such groups -- but who doesn't make any claim that these groupings represent "races" let alone "subspecies" -- a "racialist"? Your answer seems to be: 'Well such groups don't really exist as they don't fit with any valid biological construct.' If so, that, to me, sounds like an incredible feat of semiotic gymnastics. Regardless, what if that someone persisted with their position? Would they be a "racialist" or not? As for your definition of "race realist", I am still trying to position someone like Jerry Coyne. He takes "race" to be a "real biological construct" and he takes human groups which he considers to be "races" to have "distinctly different" morphological "characteristics" yet he is agnostic about any behavioral differences. "Race realist" or not? If not, you have clarified that a claim of substantial behavioral differences is prerequisite for being a "race realist" -- and presumably also a "racialist" -- which would make some philosophers of science "race realists" like Robin Andreasen not a rationalwiki "race realist". I am interested in helping edit this page because I think the editors are missing numerous "racialists" and "race realists" (in your list of prominent ones), all for which might need their own rationalwiki pages. But before engaging in this endeavor I need a better understanding of the rationalwiki meaning.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Jerry Coyne would be defined as a racialist. Definitions change over time. If a definition is not sufficient. It needs to be expanded. What do you purpose as a better definition of racialism?

ClickerClock (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Racialism" is an ambiguous 20th century term, used mostly pejoratively. It is not like "heliocentrism" or "pangenesis" -- the term, as generally employed, does not describe a clear set of beliefs or hypotheses. People define it differently. If you are going to adopt the label and identify it with a specific set of beliefs, you should be clear about what those beliefs are since readers do not have recourse to an unambiguous "standard" definitions. I am stuck on the intro. The definition proposed is not clear. Statements like "Racialism was first developed in the 1700s. It remained virtually unchallenged...." add to the confusion given the preceding passages. (An 18th century polygenic "racialist" like Morton would have not affirmed claim 3!). I had originally queried as to the necessary and sufficient criteria for being a "racialist" and as to the relation between "racialism" and "race realism". In context to "racialism" the article had mentioned three epistemic claims (noted above). I initially wanted to know if each was independently sufficient to qualify one as a "racialist" (since one can affirm each independent of the others). I think the reply has been: Any. Is this so? Also, I am waiting for a clear reply regarding if one argues that e.g., "(descent group) differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples". The question is whether one can skirt accusations of "racialism" by simply denying the semantic utility of "race" and discussing differences between what some would take to be race-like divisions using a different term.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Well you claim to have a problem with the intro, but more or less confirm it: everything you've posted is broad/continental groups only. Your thinking is typically Americanized and strongly racialized in that sense. Why not discuss the Lancaster Amish or Orcadians... why does it only have to be "European", or "Sub-Saharan African" etc for you? You're stuck with these broad racialized divisions at the continental level to suit your American politics. There's really nothing you've posted that isn't the old, already debunked, racialism.... And changing race for other words, like "continental groups" doesn't fool anyone: you end up with the same classifications. This was pointed out like 50 years ago when some of Earnest Hooton's students who shifted from race typology to populationism, made identical classifications for populations to the old typologies. Similarly, Ashley Montagu who claimed to deny race, originally ended up defending the same race classifications, but as populations. He later though corrected this blunder in his later publications. Asgardian (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this important clarification. I apologize for any redundancy below -- I had missed this reply of yours:
"And changing race for other words, like "continental groups" doesn't fool anyone: you end up with the same classifications"
I had asked numerous times whether, to avoid an accusation of "racialism", one could just deny that these groups were "races" or "subspecies" and adopt a euphemism like "human population", but now you have provided some clarification. So if Richard Lynn came out and had a press conference in which he claimed to come to the realization that "race" and "subspecies" were inapplicable to the human species, and then turned around and released a book "human population differences in Intelligence" which had all the same content as "race differences in intelligence", except with "race" and "subspecies" changed to "human population", you would still consider him to be a racialist? If so, that would make sense to me. Regarding your statement about my presumed habits of mind, note I am just trying to better understand the rationalwiki meaning of "racialism". But since you raise the issue, let me ask, would someone who argued that the "Amish" were behavioral genetically different from non-Amish and who referred to the Amish as a "race" qualify as a "racialist" -- on the grounds of (2)? Imagine this argument from someone who wasn't already otherwise suspect of "racialism": I ask because "HBD" people make these types of arguments all the time. Is it only when they talk about large regional or continental groups that they become "racialist."--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Lynn cannot avoid being labelled a racialist because he is notorious for promoting racial pseudo-science like the "big black dick hoax". In fact, even some racialists criticize his bizarre racial theories of penis size. So he's the crankiest lunatic-fringe in a crank movement... The question whether someone could discuss IQ/behaviour in regards to local populations is quite obviously yes: just look at peer-reviewed studies on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. But they become cranks if they dedicate too much time into this sort of thing that isn't very important. Furthermore, Ashkenazi Jews are though not a race, but an ethno-religious group. There would be no problem if "HBD" blogs just discussed local populations/ethnic groups, but none of them do: Jayman, Steve Sailer and so on are all obsessed with "Whites", "Blacks" and "continental genetic clusters" etc. Hbdchick (now inactive) had some informative posts on kin groups, ethnic groups and historical tribes, but she defended nicholas wade in 2014 exposing her real agenda. I left her a comment like 3 years back when she started defending Wades' racialism, telling her to avoid this. It was inevitable she would end up with a RW page. Later it also turned out she was defending Neo-Nazis on her blog.Asgardian (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That strikes me as a rather narrow specification. If you check google ngram you will see references to "German racialism", "Jewish racialism", "French racialism" "British and Boer racialism" -- where "racialism" entails views about national/ethnic groups, not necessarily massive continental ones. Regardless, can you clarify if a belief in behavioral differences is necessary? And What if one professes agnosticism -- and merely tries to use the continental/regional genetic clusters concept to explore the issue?Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Show me a single scientist today who argues Germans or French, are a "race"? Historically they didn't either; German scientists during the early 20th century maintained there were 5 races native to Europe: "Nordic", "Mediterranean", "Dinaric" and "Alpine" (see The Racial Elements of Europe by Hans Gunther). I get why though historically the British (itself a misnomer since Scots, Orcadians, Shetlanders, Ulster Protestants, Welsh, English, Manx and Cornish are separate ethnic groups ~ notice how some of these appear as different population samples in the HGDP) were sometimes considered to be a "race" because the UK is a group of islands; Winston Churchill described the British as an "island race" in his History of the English Speaking Peoples. The British were once thought to be a "race" because of their insular geographical isolation, separated to the mainland of Europe, especially when UK was at war with Germany. But the Churchillian idea of an "island race" hasn't been in literature for many decades now. That isolated breeding populations/ethnicities could theoretically be a race is discussed:

Racial skeptics like Appiah and Zack adopt normative racial eliminativism, which recommends discarding the concept of race entirely, according to the following argument. Because of its historical genealogy, the term race can only refer to one or more discrete groups of people who alone share biologically significant genetic features. Such a monopoly on certain genetic features could only emerge within a group that practices such a high level of inbreeding that it is effectively genetically isolated. Such genetic isolation might refer to the Amish in America (Appiah 1996, 73) or to Irish Protestants (Zack 2002, 69), but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, Irish [Ulster] Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence (Mallon 2006, 526, 533).

re "Historically they didn't either" I disagree a lot with this guy, but...

"...but what was meant by ‘‘race’’ in that first volume of the AJPA? It was used to refer to geographic divisions of the human species, but also to smaller categories that could correspond to nationality and even smaller social groups (Hrdlicka, 1918; Hooton, 1918). However, ‘‘race’’ had another meaning beyond the geographic or populational variation itself; it also implicitly included assumptions about the causes of that variation, assumptions, which characterize racial thinking and which today make ‘‘race’’ different from ‘‘population.’" (1918: three perspectives on race and human variation). As new data came in showing that one could differentiate further and further, this was done.

If you go back to someone like Buffon, you also see some national differences treated as racial ones e.g., "“By confounding the Ethiopians with their neighbours the Nubians, who are nevertheless of a different race, we have been long in an error with respect to their colour and features (Buffon). Of course, not everyone engaged in the practice. I guess we could make a list.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Necessary and sufficient conditions for being a racialist: Claims about behavioral genetic differences?[edit]

I agree with this since there's clearly a mismatch argument against labelling the Amish or Ulster Protestants a race (since these would be races by this definition of genetic isolation, but American census categories, not; hence a mismatch...) Of course when Churchill was writing, he predated immigration to UK from Commonwealth countries (e.g. India) and Eastern European countries (e.g. Poland), so in his eyes- the British were probably "genetically isolated" like the Amish. This is no longer the case though; its also arguable it was never the case since there were different immigrant groups in UK such as Huguenots, Ashkenazi Jews and so on who arrived centuries ago and intermarried with the British. On this subject Philip Kitcher (2007) is good reading because he discusses whether intermarrying between different groups refutes the race concept.Asgardian (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The point about behavioural differences is they will be significant if races exist because of isolation, same for genetic or phenotypic differences. Allopatric breeding population/group of populations that are pre-zygotic isolated (say by geographical barrier), will develop large genetic and behavioural differences over time. In other words you cannot have a race without potential significant differences.Asgardian (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Why would the situation be different for isolation by vicariance versus isolation by distance? Nigerians and Japanese have been reproductively isolated for around 100,000 years. They show "large" genetic differences in biallelic loci. Based on these -- just plugging the genetic divergence values into standard formulas -- one would predict "moderate" to "large" differences in quantitative traits subject to drift. The reason for supposing minimal behavioral genetic differences is homogenizing selection (that groups are not just "drifting" apart, behaviorally). Which doesn't seem unreasonable given massive pleiotropy between behavioral traits and one tied to survival (e.g., nervous system disorders).
A mutation that arises in say the Yoruba deme can spread to Japanese through isolation-by-distance, but not vicariance. Isn't this obvious? In the case of isolation-by-distance -think of a trellis of interconnected populations. Even populations at the geographical extremes are part of this genetic network. The fact all populations are part of a trellis means there is going to be considerably less genetic differentiation that a scenario where there is a geographical barrier and absolutely no gene flow between populations. This explains why there are no traits unique to individuals of one human population (i.e.. autapomorphies), however if we go back tens of millennia they probably existed (Neandertals supposedly had certain non-metric cranial traits unique to them). As I mentioned Pleistocene population-structure was very different to Holocene.Asgardian (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Unanswered article Intro question[edit]

In the intro, it is said that "Racialism implies that ... and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities..." "Implies" can mean "entails" as in "logically implies". Or it can mean "suggests" as in "hints at". What is meant? To give a specific case, if a person says, "Yes, these continental "populations" "significantly" differ both phenotypically and genotypically, but I am not aware of any significant behavioral genetic differences...", are they a "racialist"?--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Continental populations?[edit]

Population geneticists don't deal with continental populations since they aren't breeding populations; there are no "West Eurasians", "East Asians" or "Sub Saharan Africans" in population genetics. Cavalli-Sforza arguably the most influential population geneticist, argues against these terms. But if he does use them, he highlights them to show they're problematic/useless (hence terms like "Caucasoid" are with "..." throughout his The History and Geography of Human Genes and he criticizes the race concept in general). The people who are obsessed with continental populations are always Americans. Reason? They're mutts. They cannot identify with an actual local/ethnic group since they're mixed ethnically, so they cling to a broad/continental identity hence "White American" and "African-American" etc. In Europe though no one identifies primarily as "White", but by local/ethnic group, e.g. "Danes", "Walloon", "Flemish" and the same for Africa. Quayshawn Spencer is an American who promotes "Black" identity politics. Asgardian (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

When I google search, I get: They discuss these groupings and these groupings turn out to be the same thing Spencer discusses, which turns out to be "descent groups". Whatever the case, I think you are missing the point. See above.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and virtually all those studies are by scientists in the USA using Americanized self-reported ancestry/descent groups, that are broad e.g. "White/European", "Sub-Saharan African" etc. Here's what is on that first Google Scholar page: Sabeti et al. 2007 (6/6 institutions of authors are USA), Auton et al. 2009 (3/3 institutions of authors are USA), Yang et al. 2005 (6/8 institutions of authors are USA), Gutenkunst et al. 2009 (3/3 institutions of authors are USA), and so on. Simply check author institutions.... Outside of America these self-reported ancestry/descent groups do not exist. People in Europe on census forms do not identify as "white/European", but by their local ethnic group and when it comes to population genetics studies by European institutions, they base their studies on local self-reported ethnicities- Cavilli-Sforza (being Italian) is a good example. Cavilli-Sforza set up the Human Genome Diversity Project that has 61 population samples. There's no "White/European" continental nonsense in this: it only covers local groups like Orcadian, Basque, French, Sardinian etc. Its quite laughable you want to cluster all these peoples together when they have so little in common. Asgardian (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
See the bottom section: "local populations exist, continental do not"Asgardian (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, HapMap and other projects collect genetic data on local geographic/breading populations, then population geneticists and genetic epidemiologists apply cluster analysis to the data and assign individuals to broad "clusters" or "descent groups", which they varyingly call "continental populations", "descent groups", "ancestry populations", "genetic clusters", etc. We are discussing the epistemic status of these "derived" groups. You don't think they are valid groupings. But many of the people you cite seem to disagree. I pointed to Templeton's discussion below. But you also cite Maglo et al. (2016):
"An evolutionary-based grouping of world populations attempts to summarize the complex human population history while an instrumental grouping lumps pragmatically world populations into five continental groups reducing evolutionary relations. It is this instrumentally engineered clustered picture of human evolutionary history that is misleadingly construed as corresponding to socially defined races in countries such as the US. Although these socially defined races and continental genetic clusters do not actually match, the alleged correspondence has generated its own sets of debates."
It seems to me that the authors here do not deny the validity of "continental genetic clusters" or "continental groups reducing evolutionary relations"; what they argue is that these do not correspond with "socially defined races in countries such as the US", which is obviously true in some instances. Anyways, I am not interested in defending "race". My question is whether someone could be a racialists if they talked about behavioral differences between these types of groupings but called them "ethnic groups" or "human populations" or something else -- even though these groups were not technically "ethnic groups" or "breeding populations" -- and also noted that they found terms such as "race" and "subspecies" confusing. My impression is that you are saying: 'No, by definition they are not "racialists", but they maybe "pseudoscientists" because such broad groups don't exist'. Is that correct? Again, I am just trying to get clarification.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
They're racialists if they argue for aggregating local populations into "continental groups", regardless what they call the latter; as races, or not. You're mistaken if you think someone defending these broad groups, but calls them by another name, doesn't make them a racialist; this is pointless semantics. A recent excellent quote is from Bill Nye: "There's different tribes, but not different races." Nye understands there are local populations i.e. ethnic groups, but not races in the sense of broad/large continental aggregates of local populations such as "East Asian". If you're working only with local populations you aren't a racialist. Simple. Nye calls these local groups, "tribes". I don't have a problem with that, but in population genetics they're known as "demes" (breeding populations), while in cultural anthropology, "ethnic groups". It doesn't matter really what they are called, as long as not race. Also, read the quote in the section near bottom: Cavilli-Sforza denies the utility or validity of "continental genetic clusters". The fact is so does Templeton if you read his book Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory who warns: "an isolation-by-distance model with no genetic clusters at all will still have the appearance of genetic clusters if individuals are sampled by populations that are separated by geographical sampling gaps." The appearance of genetic clusters is a computational sampling error. Templeton makes it clear he is against clustering; he argues for the existence of demes, as local populations, not races. Also, read Relethford, 2017:

Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species' evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races. The proper study of human biological variation needs to be rooted in evolutionary theory and population genetics.[1]

Asgardian (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

re: "They're racialists if ... " -- Even if they don't argue for behavioral genetic differences between the groups? So, for example, is Q. Spencer, with his biogenomic "continental populations" a "racialist"? Again, I am just trying to get a clear understanding of your meaning.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne[edit]

Jerry Coyne is re-defining race to a new concept/definition. This is already covered on the article, i.e. since race has been falsified - racialists change the definition. So yes, Coyne is a racialist. A scholar (Adam Hochman) put out several papers recently criticising this; I suggest you read Hochman's papers that debunk what he calls "weak race naturalism". The "strong" form was falsified, so racialists trivialised/weakened the definition of race. But this "weak" form still fails. Anyway, I believe Jerry Coyne already has a RationalWiki article, but it doesn't mention anything about his racialism. The reason is probably that Coyne has hardly written about race. He only wrote one blog entry on the subject. That clearly separates him to the race-obsessed crackpots like John Fuerst. When though Coyne did publish his race blog post years back - he got a lot of rebuttals by other scientists. Asgardian (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
He gave a presentation defending the position. And he continues to defend it. Here is from this august:

He recommends "On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism". Archives show that those authors footnote: "For similar arguments about the reality of race, see The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility." So two degrees of connection to your "race-obsessed crackpots".--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, well he has hundreds or thousands of blog posts,and only 2 are on race (I thought 1, but he apparently made another this year). That proves my point anyway, because he rarely writes on the subject. Also, his peer-reviewed publications are not on race. Now reading his updated blog post, he says he defends ethnicity, not race. It looks like he has modified his views. If he's only defending ethnicity/local populations as opposed to continental populations, he's not even now a racialist.Asgardian (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. By focusing on specific cases, we seem to be making progress. I disagree with your interpretation regarding Coyne, but we can contact him and ask for clarification, later. Lets turn to the article which he endorses and says is scientifically accurate. Those authors say:
"Evidence from a variety of disciplines, including genetics, anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology, indicates that human populations evolved distinctive features after spreading from Africa and settling in different ecological and climatic niches (Bellwood 2013; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Molnar 2006; Wade 2014). Although such human biological variation is often ignored by social scientists, it is not really a matter of dispute among researchers in the relevant disciplines (see above). And because human populations do vary, they can be clustered and classified. The construct of race allows researchers to do this. One can begin with broad, continentally based categories: Caucasians, East Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and Astralian borigines(Wade2014).They are broad, general categories, but they have some predictive value. Importantly, there is nothing real in some metaphysical sense about this categorization. It is simply a pragmatic classification system that captures some differences in the world and allows researchers better to make sense of the pattern of human variation (Wade 2014). One can then move to a more granular level of categorization, replacing broad continental racial categories with more localized population categories, perhaps based on specific genetic signatures (haplotypes).
They go on to say:
"Although racial categories are scientifically defensible and have been used productively (but also destructively), we prefer to use the term human population. The argument above, however, is germane whether researchers use the term race, ethnic group, breeding group, or human population. Any of these terms is a commitment to a nomenclature that accepts the realityofhuman biologicaldiversityand acceptsthatsuch diversity can be classified for analytical purposes."
So, they say they prefer to use "population" to describe what the "construct of race" does, a construct which applies to "broad, continentally based categories" in addition to "more granular level of categorization".
Is this position racialist or not?--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no hierarchical/agglomerative clustering. If there appears to be, its not real, but a computational sampling error. This is explained in detail by Templeton, as well as on the main racialism article: If you take too few populations samples from continents, you end up with sampling errors that produce clusters, especially if you miss populations that are between geographical extremes. But when more populations are included, any clustering disappears: isolation-by-distance best explains global human population structure. So there's no continental clustering as races, but a spatial continuum of local populations as ethnic groups/tribes. The only people who deny this are: Americans or white/black nationalists for political reasons. Self-identified "White Americans" are on average a diverse mixture of different ethnic groups from Europe, so they cannot identify singularly with an ethnicity so instead only the whole European continent. This sort of Pan-European thinking doesn't exist in Europe e.g. Swedes identify as Swedes, English as English and so on.Asgardian (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you are eliding distinctions. Templeton argues that humans did not diverge into genetic clusters, whereby he means substantially discontinuous groups. His argument is that the discontinuities which allow unsupervised cluster analysis to pick out distinct groups is a product of sampling. This was the argument made by Serre et al. against Rosenberg et al.
Rosenberg, N. A., Pritchard, J. K., Weber, J. L., Cann, H. M., Kidd, K. K., Zhivotovsky, L. A., & Feldman, M. W. (2002). Genetic structure of human populations. science, 298(5602), 2381-2385.
Serre D, Pääbo S (2004) Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res 14: 1679–1685.D. SerreS. Pääbo2004Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents.
Rosenberg, N. A., Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J. K., & Feldman, M. W. (2005). Clines, clusters, and the effect of study design on the inference of human population structure. PLoS genetics, 1(6), e70.
Ok, but it concerns historical vicariance. One could nonetheless grant the validity/utility of "continental descent groups" picked out of a relative continuum (simply excluding intermediate groups). So if one instrumentally used cluster analysis to aggregate local populations into broad descent groups without making any commitment about evolved human population structure would one be a "racialist"? This is what some of the authors you cite do.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Andreasen (sp?) only argues races existed in the past based on cladistics. This isn't a controversial position. There were probably subspecies tens of millennia ago. They don't though exist now. Here's what one of my favourite scientists (Milford H. Wolpoff) says on the subject:

[A]s the significant population expansions and movements of the late Pleistocene and more recent times began (Hawks et al. 2007), the ancient pattern of distinct regional differences (subspecies) was obscured. One consequence is that today variation within populations is greater than variation between populations, and subspecies (biological races) do not exist [...] Human geographic variation obviously exists, but it is not racial. Modern paleoanthropology and genetics are among the disciplines that have shown that there is no taxonomy in the human species below the species level. They also show that the present poorly reflects the past. Neandertal morphology and genetics, and genetic evidence of other distinct groups, suggest far more population structure in the past. It is likely that for much of the Pleistocene the human species had races. But, whether or not races appeared in the past, they did not persist. With only some exceptions, much of the Pleistocene human variation did not survive the enormous population expansions and replacements of the latest Pleistocene and Holocene. (Wolpoff, 2013)

Asgardian (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Immediately below ClickerClock|ClickerClock notes two criteria for "race realists". However Robin Andreasen's (1998; 2005; 2007) argued that "races" insofar as they are clades are ontologically real, regardless of whether they have " distinctly different characteristics". For her, they just have to be clades. Her position on the reality of human races is not relevant to the point I am making, which concerns the meaning of the term "race realism". I was noting that in the philosophy of science the term has a different meaning than that noted by "ClickerClock|ClickerClock".--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick definition[edit]

A race realist or racialist believes that:

  1. race is a real biological construct (subspecies is irrelevant)
  2. based on those races, humans have distinctly different characteristics.

Race is not a real biology construct. I'm going to cite someone who actually studies human evolution.

The cited author's (Alan Templeton's) whole argument is based on the idea that "race is a real biology construct" that corresponds to the taxonomic rank of subspecies. He draws a distinction between races as subspecies and less differentiated genetic "populations". Contra Asgardian, he has no problem discussing continental-level genetic populations ("Consequently, neither aspect of the threshold definition is satisfied; there are no sharp boundaries separating human populations, and the degree of genetic differentiation among human groups, even at the continental level, is extremely low). The argument is that regional and "continental" human populations are not differentiated enough to qualify as subspecies per his criteria. Now, I notice that this quick definition is unspecific about behavioral differences. By it, is a belief in such differences necessary?--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if race is culturally real, that does not mean that these societal racial categories are biologically meaningful. For example, individuals who classify themselves as “white” in Brazil are often considered “black” in the U.S.A.


Recall that genetic differentiation alone does not necessarily mean that any of these groups are races.


Consequently, neither aspect of the threshold definition is satisfied; there are no sharp boundaries separating human populations, and the degree of genetic differentiation among human groups, even at the continental level, is extremely low. Using the threshold definition, there are no races in humans.


The “races” so apparent to many who cited Rosenberg et al. (2002) simply disappeared with better sampling. These results and Figure 2 further falsify the hypothesis that humans are subdivided into evolutionary lineages.


Humans are an amazingly diverse species, but this diversity is not due to a finite number of subtypes or races.

—Alan R. Templeton

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue <-- plain text easy to read.

Races do not determine qualities like strength, speed or intelligence because races don't exist.

Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.

^ This sentence is literally in the first paragraph of Britannica's entry on Race. Britannica is a great step up from a dictionary and better and more accurate than a dictionary. It's what you read when you actually want to have a basic understanding on a topic, not a dictionary. ClickerClock (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article re-write[edit]

John Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a racialist pseudo-scientist who publishes in Open Behavioral Genetics - a non-peer-reviewedAlthough Open Behavioural Genetics purports to be peer-reviewed academic journal, it isn't. The formal peer-reviewed process involves independent referees who provide detailed critiques of submissions, usually taking between two and four weeks to fully scrutinise; sometimes longer. In contrast referees for Open Behavioural Genetics review submissions within days and referees are not independent; instead they communicate with each other on the same message board (Open Psych) and are not either impartial. Referees for Open Behavioural Genetics are strongly biased towards racialism, in other words the journal is not science since referees support the advocacy of racialist pseudoscience before even reviewing submissions. This explains why no submission has ever been published by the journal that argues against racialismpseudo-journal set up by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard; nearly all citations of Fuerst's papers are by the editor of the same journal (Kirkegaard), meaning no actual scientists pay attention to his work. Furthermore, neither Fuerst nor Kirkegaard have any scientific qualifications.

Professor of Philosophy Jonathan Kaplan (specialising in the philosophy of biology) has described Fuerst as "an intellectually dishonest racist".

What is the Point?[edit]

What is the point of racialism anyways? Whether you believe in Creation or Evolution we all came from the same origins no matter how you view it.--Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 15:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what is the point of taxononmy? There is only one organism: the organism. Wow, I feel so wise and profound. (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources on "forensic" race identification[edit]

Good post Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No it's a stupid post. Eg.

"A somewhat infamous example of the latter problem comes from Williams et al. (2005), which used the popular FORDISC program to assign ancestry to a sample of Ancient Nubian crania, and the program spat out garbage, assigning the skulls to populations to groups as like Australian Aborigines, Norwegians, Ainu, and Easter Islanders."

Well what would you expect if the system hadn't been trained on such samples? But I guess the post fits your fake science equality quasi-religious worldview. You people are a joke. If you have to call yourself rational, you probably aren't. Now take a drink, I suggest methanol. (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

To do[edit] Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Local populations exist, continental do not[edit]

The article can be summarised by the following quote:

The majority of human population geneticists and biological anthropologists, though they reject the race concept because of the arbitrariness of racial divisions, are prepared to divide the entire human species into more-or-less discrete panmictic units or demes despite the extensive continuities in breeding patterns and allelic distributions that exist. Biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks, for example, rejects the “typological” division of humans into a small number of discrete races because, circling the globe, one finds that traits are distributing continuously. He argues instead that it is the “small biopackages” called populations, not races, that are the “real units of human diversity” (1995: 274, 116). Similarly, human population geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza treats panmictic populations as real but characterizes attempts to classify “clusters” of populations into races as a “futile exercise” (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994, 19)." (Gannett, 2003)

This is my position and the scientific consensus. A problem is with Americans who cannot identify with this because their self-reported politicalized ancestry groups are broad, e.g. "White/European" as opposed to "Dane" or "Orcadian". That's really not my problem though. Trump for example has German/Irish and other mixed ancestries, he's a typical American mutt, so he cannot identify singularly as German or Irish only as "White American" or "European". But almost no one in Europe identifies as "European", but by their local ethnic group. Asgardian (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed race definition box to add to article[edit]

I suggest we add a box like below (you can add more definitions). Notice how all the following subspecies/race definitions require: allopatry (pre-zygotic geographical isolation/non-overlapping breeding ranges), separate evolutionary lineages & biological discontinuities. By these criteria human races don't exist: humans are sympatric, one lineage, and clinal.

Definitions of subspecies/races
Definition Source Notes
"A subspecies is a population, or collection of populations, that appears to be a separately evolving lineage with discontinuities resulting from geography, ecological specialization, or other forces that restrict gene flow to the point that the population or collection of populations is diagnosably distinct." Taylor et al. 2017 Authors argue subspecies cannot be clinal.
"The subspecies concept we advocate: diagnosable clusters of populations of biological species occupying distinct geographic ranges." Pattern & Unitt, 2002 Authors argue subspecies must show discontinuous biological variation.
"Subspecies are generally considered to be a population or populations within a species that are found in different breeding locations (allopatry) and have been equated to ‘geographic varieties’." Wang et al. 2015 Authors argue subspecies must be allopatric (geographically isolated).
"The subspecies concept should be understood to embrace groups of organisms that appear to have been on independent evolutionary trajectories (with minor continuing gene flow), as demonstrated by morphological evidence or at least one line of appropriate genetic evidence." Reeves et al. 2004 Authors argue subspecies have independent evolutionary lineages.

Asgardian (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A Modern Concept of Subspecies[edit]

It seems an abuse of the naming process to create a name for a population that may differ in but one slight character (and even then, subspecies may be named where only about two-thirds of the individuals can be distinguished, based on the most liberal interpretation of the "75% rule"); in addition, such characters are usually the result not of significant genetic differences but of expressions of different allelic frequencies in the various local populations, and thus they are not yet of any importance in the speciation process. In my opinion, sub-specific names should not be used to describe populations differing only through smooth clines reflecting general primary intergradation; such geographic variation can be expressed in other ways, most effectively through the use of computer mapping. Subspecies (a trinomial scientific name) should be used in two situations: (1) allopatric populations where definition of the populations is clear, distinct, and total (or very nearly so); and (2) situations where secondary contact between distinct populations has occurred and the zone of intergradation is relatively narrow.

Monroe, Burt L. "A modern concept of the subspecies." The Auk 99.3 (1982): 608-609.Asgardian (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Secular changes in the evolutionary significance of the rank of subspecies[edit]

This is an interested quote. Monroe acknowledges that by liberal interpretations -- at least circa the 80s -- one could formally name slightly different groups; he argues, though, that the criteria should be tightened up. We should probably try to track changes in conventions for recognizing subspecies. Mayr discusses some and notes that taxonomists were really lax in the 1930s and 1940s. Templeton miscites a paper from the late 90s, which it turns out discuses the same 75% rule. So, if there was a tightening up, it must have been in the 00s -- probably with conservation efforts and ensuing regulations. This implies that the evolutionary significance of the rank "subspecies" has substantially altered over time. This probably should be noted in the article. When someone like Sewall Wright (1978) notes that there obviously are human subspecies, he meant something quite different, in terms of differentiation, than what many contemporary taxonomists would mean.--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the history of the subspecies concept being originally based on liberal interpretations, but then "tightened". There never was a consensus of the liberal interpretation; the 1980s study I quoted just criticizes that viewpoint. There was a debate concerning diagnosability criteria as early as the 1950s; in 1953, Wilson & Brown already argued subspecies must show massive phenotypic/genetic differentiation. Mayr was ambiguous about setting a threshold, but he seems to have recognised one (quotes are on archives.) I get Mayr and Wright argued humans have subspecies, but their works actually show why they don't exist/or have no utility: Mayr and Wright proposed different human race classifications. Now what? They basically confirm race is incredibly arbitrary. I fail to see how race is useful if people can come up with different classifications, e.g. you might identify as "white", but to someone else you might not be. We see a lot of that just comparing different census forms; someone in Brazil might be "black", but "white" elsewhere, or vice-versa.Asgardian (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This attitude, "I can't be bothered to go through the archives..." explains a lot. Apparently, you are not willing to review the actual historical literature but based on your impressions you would like to make broad, authoritative proclamations, such as "I don't see the history of the subspecies concept being originally based on liberal interpretations, but then "tightened"."
Well, what were the conventional criteria in the 1910's, 1930's, 1950's, 1970's, 1990's and 2010's?--Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mayr's views on race and subspecies[edit]

I can't be bothered to go through the archives, but both Wright & Mayr maintained subspecies were usually not local populations (several quotes were provided); Mayr often distinguished demes, to races, as well as to ecotypes. If you also read Mayr's definition of subspecies he is clear in nearly every instance they are "groups" of populations (as aggregates); so with very few exceptions, he's talking of broad geographical divisions. This is problematic to your position where you want to argue for a hierarchical clustering or different scale of granularity analysis (with local populations being the most fine-grained) since the micro/local populations are not named subspecies/races. An anthropologist (Stanley Garn) in the 1960s proposed to call local populations as "micro races", while much broader as "geographical races" (with the former fitting in the latter); this was never popular and rejected by scientists at the time. It also doesn't solve the fact the "geographical races" are arbitrary. Why for example have a "West Eurasian" race, and not a "Eurasian"? Why not an "Afro-European", combining Africa with Europe etc.?Asgardian (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, you continually miss the distinction between "race" as a systematic classification and "subspecies" as a taxonomic rank. Here is Wright, for example:
"There is also no question, however, that populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered to be of different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair in spite of so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other... It is, however, customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones."
He goes on to note how genetic differences need not be large.
Like most other biologists at the time he used the term "subspecies" to describe the taxonomic rank immediately below "species" (and the taxa assigned to it) and "race" as a more generic systematic term to describe more generic groupings. As such, "subspecies" the taxa were "races" but not all "races" were subspecies, because "race" could characterize minor divisions both within "subspecies" and outside of "subspecies". As for subspecies recognition, he referrers to the 75% rule. Now Mayr adopts more or less the same epistemology. Mayr's subspecies are formally recognized races that are assigned trinomen. In Principles of systematic zoology (1990, p. 427) he gives the following:
Race: See subspecies; local populations not sufficiently different to be formally designated as subspecies. p. 427
Subspecies: An aggregate of local populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of the species and differently taxonomically from other populations of the species. p. 430
Geographic race: See: Subspecies. A geographically delimited race, usually a subspecies. p. 417
Ecological race: A local race that owes its most conspicuous aspects to the selective effect of a specific environment (see: Ecotype). 414
Micro-geographic race: A local race restricted to a very small area. p. 421
Mayr (2002) noted that major continental groups were "geographic races". And didn't have a problem calling them "races" despite the relatively recent breakdown of allopatry. In This is Biology (1998) he discusses the "various human races" and possible "mental differences" but is unclear as to which groups constitute these
It is hard to reconcile you statement that "This is problematic to your position... since the micro/local populations are not named subspecies/races," given Mayr's own definitions -- I appreciate though that much of your argument hangs on an ahistorical conflation of "race" as a systematic classification with "subspecies" as a taxonomic rank. This is not to say that I think Mayr's definitions are clear. I don't think he thought through the matter to well.Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere does Mayr say deme = race, but the complete opposite. What those quotes you posted show is that he inserted a level of categorization between deme and subspecies, i.e. race. So Mayr has deme/race/subspecies as opposed to just deme/subspecies. Elsewhere however Mayr wrote subspecies is synonymous with race and that is how I use it, although others criticize this. ['Subspecies' and 'race' should not be used as synonyms], but which mentions: "the term 'race' is often treated as a synonym for the taxonomic rank of subspecies (for example, see E. Mayr Principles of Systematic Zoology 44, McGraw-Hill, 1969)." Or in Mayr's own words: "In the combination 'geographic' race' it [race] is sometimes synonymous with subspecies" (Mayr, 1963: 350). I should point out Maglo somewhere has this as a 3 tier pyramid, and provides examples. Tier 1 would be a local ethnic group (one country), Tier 2 as a grouping of ethnic groups covering a sub-continent and therefore a few countries like Scandinavia, while Tier 3, the largest grouping of ethnic groups (hundreds, or even thousands) covering an entire continent and dozens of countries. My argument is Tier 3 is not applicable to population genetics or physical anthropology and is useless; Tier 2 only has limited use for specific traits, for example someone could discuss blondism in relation to "Scandinavians", while Tier 1 is the norm for population geneticists, e.g. Cavalli-Sforza, 1994. As an example if we look at autosomal Fst- the genetic distance between Greeks and Russians is 0.0108. Why should they be clustered together if there is x 10 (!) the genetic distance than that found between adjacent or nearby ethnic groups in Europe by country, e.g. Dutch/Danes Fst=0.0009?? You don't provide any reason for clustering heterogeneous peoples together (which is against the common-sense of categorization based on similarity...) As the biologist Jonathan Marks says, the purpose of race is to find homogenous within, but heterogeneous between groups; this doesn't work for "continental populations". And if you look at IQ you will also see this: Bosnia and Herzegovina IQ=83, UK:99, but they should be grouped together into the same "European race" like Lynn puts them? Bizarre.Asgardian (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
He defined a deme as a local population. And a races as local populations not sufficiently differentiated to be a subspecies. He also considers subspecies to be races, because he notes That a geographic race is "A geographically delimited race, usually a subspecies". So no, there is not a three level division. Rather local population/deme and races (genetically differenced local populations) are treated as systematic unites. Subspecies is a taxonomic on, which involved the formal recognition of certain systematic unities (i.e., geographic races). This is getting tedious. And the issue it tangential -- perhaps stop bridging these up, the original point was to clarify the racialist definition. --Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
You're misreading Mayr. His demes are not called races; his use of "local population" is sometimes ambiguous since his demes are said to be "small local populations". His usage of race as local population is broader than deme as the smallest. What happened in the 1960s is Stanley Garn took Mayr's three-levels of intraspecific operational units/categories and called them all races: micro-race, local-race, geographical-race (notice here how micro-race is deme, while local-race is more broad). Regardless, you're now contradicting yourself by agreeing that Mayr thought a non-formal intraspecific category (lower than subspecies) is "not sufficiently differentiated to be a subspecies". This was my whole argument from the start: that thresholds of differentiation are always in use by taxonomists. Since human populations only differ minimally, there are no races/subspecies- only demes, and taxonomy does not classify demes because it doesn't formally recognise them as such. Demes are only studied by population geneticists as an operational unit. No one goes around making a deme classification because as Templeton (2013) points out, since there are thousands of demes- a classification isn't even possible.Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Constructive criticism[edit]

The article is not terrible but eds. should try to rewrite the intro. The content of the article mainly argues against a biological construct called "race". However, the intro concerns itself with an opaquely defined position called "racialism". When asked what "racialism" actually entails, the replies are ambiguous. That is either because: (1) the eds. are setting up a straw man (2) eds. have a confused or unclear idea about what they mean or (3) eds. are discussing an outlook and not a well set belief system.

If (1) ignore. If (2) clarify. If (3), perhaps define "racialism" something to the effect of:

"Racialism is a perception and/or set of beliefs which places emphasis on the importance of the construct called "race" for interpreting human biological variation and for understanding the world. Racialism can manifest in a number of ways including: the belief that humanity is naturally or easily divided into well-defined categories called races, that groups designated as races are substantially different from on another, that said racial differences significantly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and/or peoples, and that racial composition strongly influences the form of societies and cultures."

This doesn't commit "racialism" to any specific beliefs, but rather identifies it with the perception that race is very important, and lists some possible diagnostic symptoms. This sort of definition has the dialectical and rhetorical benefits of better overlapping with what was generally meant by racial-ism, with being applicable across centuries, and with being flexible.The major problem is that it's difficult to "debunk", since it's less like "young earth creationism" and more like "human exceptionalism". Anyways, that is the most obvious pathway I see to rewrite this into an intellectually respectable "race critical" article, while not jettisoning most of the content.

The fact is that geneticists and biologists use a construct, sometimes called "biogeographic ancestry group" sometimes "genetic population" etc., which is not very different conceptually from some 18th and 19th century conceptions of "race". And the major -- and many of the minor -- human groups delineated by geneticists and biologists (e.g., k = 3-7) are not very different from those delineated by many 18th and 19th century race theorists. As such, "race realists" ("there-are-races-ists"?) have a point. Also, most arguments made by "race eliminativists" are semantic, internally inconsistent, fallacious, or unsound (based on fake history and fake facts).

Nonetheless, the scientific foundation of a hardcore "racialism" has been undercut -- thought the narrative is more complicated than presented here -- I think eds. can highlight in what ways without the BS.

Anyways, I made a list of 25 problem statements/sections/issues, which if you are interested I can post somewhere else, just to strong man the argument/case. e.g.,

(10) "Johann Blumenbach's 1775 racial typologies mapped onto the modern world." Of all people Blumenbach ... Brace (1964)/Lieberman (1968) cite him as the originator of the "clinal" argument against race, because he highlighted that "...innumerable varieties of man run into one another by insensible degrees .." Try: "MAP OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRINCIPAL MODIFICATIONS OF MANKIND ACCORDING TO PROF. HUXLEY." Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

HH debunked once again, or Maybe not[edit]

There are no "major"/"continental" groups. Any scientist who has tried to revive this has been refuted e.g. Rosenberg et al. 2002 was refuted by Serre and Pääbo (2004), while Rosenberg et al. 2005 was refuted by Handley et al. 2007 and Glasgow (2009). You mentioned Fst above in relation to Yoruba and Japanese. As I predicted this would only be high if you exclude many populations intermediate between these geographical extremes. Xing et al. 2010 confirms this:

Our results show that the overall FST value decreases substantially with the inclusion of geographically intermediate populations, dropping from 15.9% for HapMap, to 11.2% for HapMap + Affy6.0 + Affy250 K with non-overlapping confidence intervals (Table 2). Adding the American and Polynesian individuals into the HapMap + Affy6.0 + Affy250 K set increased FST slightly (to 11.3%) because of substantial founder effects and genetic drift in these populations. Nevertheless, the FST value in all individuals is still significantly lower than the FST value of the HapMap individual set. These statistically significant FST differences illustrate the important effects of population sampling.

So the genetic distance between Yoruba and Japanese is significantly lower than you think it is. Note the above population samples were still limited to 40 (which is quite small for a global set); the genetic distance therefore would be even lower with the inclusion of more samples. So what we actually see is: clines (smooth genetic gradients) across geographical space and small amounts of genetic differentiation - both points debunk the race concept.Asgardian (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell most "race realists" grant population continuity but also note that were is some clustering. Many 18th and 20th century race theorists expressed the same point.
As for empirical results. You cite a philosopher who does not pg work. You also cite Handley who provides a review and notes:

"These different representations of human genetic diversity are, however, not mutually exclusive and several authors agree that human genetic diversity can probably be best explained by a synthetic model, in which most of the population differentiation can be explained by IBD, with some discontinuities arising from barriers to dispersal [51,56,66,67]. In other words, human genetic variation might be best explained by a combination of both clines and clusters. However, clusters explain only a minute fraction of the variance [8,49] relative to clines. As mentioned in the main text (Figure 1b), >75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra �2% of the variance."

This is the same point made by Rosenberg et al. (2003; 2005). Interestingly the authors you cite, once again, have no problem, discussion contintental level clusters. The other paper you cite finds that "continental groups" divergence decreased some when intermediate population are introduced -- to about 10% which is what most authors find. If you think this means that the difference between Japanese and Yoruba declines, you are wrong, if you just look at these populations the Fst is much larger because you are excluding intermediate groups. Now these groups have been reproductively isolated for about 80k years. There has been little gene flow -- which is something Fst indexes. As for differences, the model is a soft sweep one, not a new alleles arriving on, That's why researchers like Piffer do alleles counting between ancestry populations -- this rests on presumption that the same cognitive alleles are shared but that they are at different frequencies owing to different selective pressures. So the issue about continental clusters s rather irrelevant to that of morphological and behavioral differences.

Anyways, did you want me to point out the problem sections or not? I have wasted too much time in this already Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Actual genetic discontinuities, HH debunked again[edit]

Discontinuities appear (although biological variation is best overall explained by IBD/clines as agreed by Handley et al.), but that they never appear between continents:

In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries.

- Barbujani et al. 1997

I already provided some examples of these, e.g. Amish and Ulster Protestants; Kalash are another good example. All these demes are very endogamous, so you can detect genetic discontinuities because there is virtually no gene flow. What you don't though find is genetic discontinuities between continents - most continents are continuous and are not separated by mountains, large stretches of water etc. Where you find the genetic continuities are irregularly within single countries. You also repeat a fallacy that if someone mentions or discusses "continental populations" they argue for their existence or utility, no. Templeton is a good example. Cavilli-Sforza mentions "Mongoloids", "Caucasoids" etc., but argues against their existence/utility (hence he highlights them).Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Trashbin for HH's addressed comments/questions[edit]

I was wondering if the editors could clarify this statement:

"Racialism is the idea that humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories ("races") that are both broad (each category should include many humans, such as entire continents) and clearly-defined (the categorization method should rarely misidentify someone's "race"). Racialism implies that these races are substantially different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples. Essentially, racialism argues that human populations are substantially different from each other to a degree which necessitates biological classification below the species level. In short, racialism holds that biology divides humans. Very few racialists call themselves "racialist". Their preferred labels include scientific racism (pre–2000),[note 1] race realism or racial realism (post–2000),[note 2] and human biodiversity or HBD (post–2010).[note 3]Racialism was first developed in the 1700s. It remained virtually unchallenged until the 1930s-1960s, when genetics showed it to be erroneous. Simply put, modern racialism is pseudoscientific bullshit.[1][2][3][4]"

I find this passage rather confusing. At minimum, what do so called "racialists" believe?

(1) "humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories that are both broad (each category should include many humans, such as entire continents) and clearly-defined (the categorization method should rarely misidentify someone's "race")" (2) "races are substantially different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples" (3) "that human populations are substantially different from each other to a degree which necessitates biological classification below the species level"

All three or any of the above? Also, what does the statement "humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories" imply? There seems to be a trivial sense in which this is the case. Consider oceans, one can easily but arbitrarily divide the world ocean into two well defined sub-oceans based on geography (e.g., everything west of the prime meridian and east of the antimeridian). It would seem that one could do the same for humans based on genetic distance -- of course, the boundaries would be arbitrary.

Are all proponents of the view that "human races exit" "racialists" as defined above? Or are there "non racialist" "race realists"? If not, is this because "race realists" are being defined as "racialists" or because it is empirically true that all self identifying "race realists" affirm 1-3? If the latter, where is the survey-based evidence? If the former, what is a proponents of the view that "human races exit" who denies 1-3 called? It seems that one can list prominent biologists and philosophers of biology who deny 1-3 but affirm that "human races exits", so I am curious as to what they would be called.

As for "racialists" defined here, what is the reason for adopting the specific definition? Google n-gram shows that the term became popular between the 1940s and 1980s -- it seems often to have been used as a pejorative. Is rationalwiki's definition idiosyncratic or a generally accepted one? Dictionaries seem to be conflicting and unclear on the matter:

--Webster: a theory that race determines human traits and capacities; also :racism --Oxford: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. --Oxford dictionary of sociology: "Racialism is the unequal treatment of a population group purely because of its possession of physical or other characteristics socially defined as denoting a particular race ( see race ). Racism is the deterministic belief-system that sustains racialism, linking these characteristics with negatively valuated social, psychological, or physical traits. " --Oxford dictionary of psychology: "Prejudice , discrimination, stereotyping, or condescension on the basis of race ( 2 ) , usually accompanied by a belief in the intrinsic superiority of one race over another or others or by race hatred. Also called racism , but distinguished from it in careful usage." --American heritage dictionary: " An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events." --Collins English dictionary: racism --Macmillian: No definition --Fowlers dictionary of modern english: racialism , one of the key words of the 20c., entered English at the beginning of the 20c., some thirty years before the term racism , which has almost entirely superseded it, and is more than 200 times more frequent than it is in the OEC data. Both terms are used of discriminatory behaviour by authorities or groups (governments, police, employers, etc.) against people on grounds of colour, religion, or nationality.

It would help if references were given.--Huckleberry Hound (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Holy rant Batman! But in all seriousness it is rather clear from the first few sentences, Racialists believe that races are clearly distinguishable and that there are physical, very clear differences in physical and intellectual ability between these "races". The problem being that it's hard to tell where the line between the races is drawn, what separates a black man from a white man, an Asian from an Aboriginal, sure you could say skin color, but that fails to explain albinos. You could say genes, but if you look at that even whites will have bioindicators from places like Africa and other random places. You could say ancestry, but then where do you draw the line, if you go back far enough there will be some "impurity." Quite simply racialism is bullshit, not.much more to it. SpacePriusIs always watching 11:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
These are comments on there way to deletion, which is why the section is call "trash bin". It is not a "new rant" it is an old "inquiry." I will leave then in the trash bib for a couple of days and delete then. As to them, I had asked whether all three claims were necessary and for some other clarifications. I don't see why asking for clarification would be a problem. For example Asgadian (who should be banned for attempting to dox people), has replied that:
(1) One does not have to argue that groups necessitate the rank of subspecies
(2) One does not actually have to consider or describe groups as "races"
(3) "racialism" requires claims about broad continental groups, not local groups, like 'the English population is more intelligent than the Congolese one'.
He has not responded as to whether:
(3) One needs to posit behavioral genetic differences
The point you raise is interesting, because most "racialists" and "race realists" have acknowledge continuous variation -- and the difficulty in delineating groups. For example, Jensen who you claimed to be a racialist, described races as fuzzy sets not discrete ones. So that begs the question of whether this is a necessary criteria.
In light of this, in good faith, I offered a possible way to rewrite the article. Apparently you are not interested. You would rather have a straw argument.
But yes, "racialism" as you define is largely untenable -- but on inspection you find very few actual racialist.
As for you question, yes, historically race, which in French means lineage or breed, was largely defined in terms of similarity in descent. This entails grouping individual horizontally, in the Darwinian manner. So you look at present day similarity in ancestral informative character. As for "purity" I am not aware of many racial theoriests who made this a part of the definition of race; they have always been willing at acknowledge hybrid races. So if we adopt Mallons historical consistency argument, you have to drop this an many other claims.
If the comments were are going to be hostile, I will cease to try to help you improve the article. There presently are so many errors that it is readily dismissible.Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude, HH is a sock of John Fuerst, the race-obsessed crank. And just read his article to see his political biases. He only argues for "race" (as "continental populations") to match his political agenda. I explained why in detail above: in America, virtually everyone is mixed ethnically, so they have an identity crisis... So instead of being able to identify as "Swede" or "Dutch" etc (a local ethnic group), they can only identify as "White" or "European" etc in the pan-European broad sense because self-identified "White Americans" are a mixture of Irish/German/English/Polish/Italian etc ancestries & cultures. That's why Fuerst is obsessed politically with Americanized "race" as "continental populations" and can never just discuss local populations like "Swede" like an actual normal person. Asgardian (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You sound like the paranoid crank. And what is your obsession with this John guy -- who you keep bringing up -- did he beat you in an internet argument or something? Silly. You complain about me for pointing out that "race" historically wasn't used only describe continental populations but also regional and local ones, authors and time depending. You complain about this John guy for discussing mostly continental level race. Weird. Which is it? --Huckleberry Hound. (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"Race" was never used to refer to demes, see above. Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As for you being John, well you referenced yourself by citing your own publication "The Nature of Race" above. A random user here (not John) wouldn't do this since they are unlikely to have read your work (its obscure). A "duck test" is pretty conclusive you are also John based on writing style. John also admitted on his talk page he has an obsession with race, possibly pointing to Asperger syndrome. People with Asperger's often have an obsessional interest. That explains a lot about you. Race is all you talk about and you clearly have a mental-health issue concerning this. lol. Quite sad really.Asgardian (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

=Not sure why HH is a expecting reply[edit]

HH wants a reply, to someone to take his points into consideration and then amend the article. But I don't think anyone cares:

  • View the 7 x archives of this talk. They go back to 2014; 99% of the discussion since then was by only two users on hundreds of socks: me vs. a demented Neo-Nazi (or an Antifa impersonating a Nazi, I cannot tell, Poe's law...) who has been banned here countless times. That Neo-nazi/antifa is the sock Ip above and he does the same thing at Wikipedia on its race classification article, e.g. only two days ago- Its only me and that Nazi/Antifa guy active here, sorry. Sometimes you get a single comment by a RW sysop now and again, but like above- they don't hang around for very long.
  • I made most edits on the racialism article from 2013-2015 but in the last 2 years, I've hardly edited it (and most changes go against what I added!). There are problems and I highlighted some of these. Its also true there's a faction of SJW/Antifa who now edit it; and a major error they make is going as far as denying the existence of demes. For them only individuals exist. They're basically the opposite side of the coin to the Nazis and think by merely discussing human biological variation = racism. The problem with the SJW's denying demes is how can population geneticists study evolution as genetic change over generations? Without breeding populations there's no evolution. Note that the left-wing Encylopedia of Race and Racism points out demes/breeding populations do exist; I personally don't see why someone with ultra-left wing political views should deny them:

The rationale for naming population units below the species level comes from the simple fact that members of a species are seldom, if ever, evenly distributed throughout the species’ geographical range. Uneven distribution can result in clusters of individuals partially isolated from other such clusters—that is, with more interbreeding within the clusters than between them—simply because of proximity. It is to such clusters that the term deme is usually applied. Thus, the green frogs in an isolated pond, a town of prairie dogs, or a field of wild sunflowers might be examples of demes. Given the accepted general definition [a local interbreeding population], it can certainly be said that demes exist within the human species, where they are identified as semi-isolated endogamous (literally, ‘‘marriage within’’) populations. The isolation may be spatial, as in any of a number of societies inhabiting separate and secluded valleys in the New Guinea Highlands, or cultural, as in the religiously based isolation of groups such as the Hutterites, Mennonites, and Amish.

Asgardian (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


It says in your article.

"To deny the existence of subspecies in Homo sapiens is not to deny biological variation between populations; there is human population structure."

So what is the population structure? Is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis not a subspecies? Max Triggers (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever looked on an evolutionary timeline -- say, at when recent human migrations vs Neanderthal migrations occurred? FuzzyCatPotato of the Naked Kerfuffles (talk/stalk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. Relethford, J. H. (2017). "Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race" in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford University Press.