Trying to Understand Biology/Genetics & Race

[Manhattan]

I'm going to start this off by saying that I am totally confused about this and do not mean to bait.

 

So in high school I took a course on race & ethnicity. In that course, we were taught this comforting idea that race didn't exist and that it was totally a human construct and that even two fruit flies were likely to be 10x more genetically diverse than any two humans blah blah blah. While this may be true, I think it doesn't mean that there are clear genetic differences between races. Follow my logic:

 

1) Although "race" is a human construct in the sense that species is the lowest denominator biologically and we're all homo sapiens, that doesn't mean that what we know as races didn't evolve in isolated groups over the thousands of years they have been around to have significant genetic differences.

 

2) These differences represent themselves in physical traits - obviously we can see that different races of people look different and have features adapted to the climate they "evolved" in.

 

3) If there are differences in physical traits, there also must be differences in mental traits that would show in differences in a race's behaviors and intellect. These differences would have been selected for over time by natural or social pressures to whichever traits would be beneficial to survival in a particular environment.

 

4) So, if there are differences on a mental level as well as a physical level, then how come we are taught that all races are the same or that race "doesn't exist"?

 

For instance, we know that people of African descent have characteristically different muscles that are advantageous over muscles of other races, particularly in reflex ability and twitch. We can accept that, because that is an observable fact.

 

We can even delve deeper into our genetic differences and assert that different races, due to isolated genetic evolution, are more susceptible to certain genetic disorders and diseases than others. We can accept this too, because it is an observable fact.

 

However, how come it is incorrect to assert behaviors or intelligence to race? Sure we have to be a little bit different on a mental and behavioral level if we are already diverse on other genetic levels, even if that difference is minute.

[zoogs]

I don't know why that was taught. There's a difference between "accepting and embracing differences" and "pretending they don't exist", the latter of which is what it seems was taught in that class. Although I don't know about "asserting intelligence" to race.

[Husker_x]

While there are obviously genetic differences between people––and this means all people, not just based on skin color––you have to keep scale in front of you. For instance, we share 98% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, and we can't interbreed. We're even more similar in DNA to our fellow humans. So to talk about vast differences among our species is probably inaccurate in the first place.

 

Even if we're examining the African "race", there are still astonishing differences in tribes on the continent. There are tribes which are enormously tall and lean where the average population height approaches seven feet, and tribes that have an average in between four and five feet. Still, we aren't talking about speciation here, and the differences can also be attributed to nutrition and agriculture. The average height and lifespan of human beings has risen in the west since the Industrial Revolution.

 

On the intelligence part, I have seen no evidence at all that if you took an infant from a less civilized "race" and put him with a more civilized "race" that he would not be able to adapt to the culture. First you have to ask yourself what exactly are you measuring? Even the pigmies of the deepest bush have culture. build shelter, engage in agriculture, hunting, and community organization, express art and primitive philosophy, etc. Whether or not they've advanced in these things has more to do with culture than the contents of their DNA, and there's no reason to suspect that they couldn't learn something else if they ever decided it was valuable.

 

But there's no denying that our species has adapted to the environment in difference places. The first of our species group came out of Africa and we've all been adapting to our environments since (though the more we depend on our tools to change the environment, the more we rid ourselves of natural selection).

[mmmtodd]

While there are obviously genetic differences between people––and this means all people, not just based on skin color––you have to keep scale in front of you. For instance, we share 98% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, and we can't interbreed. We're even more similar in DNA to our fellow humans. So to talk about vast differences among our species is probably inaccurate in the first place.

 

 

 

 

damn.

[knapplc]

I'm going to start this off by saying that I am totally confused about this and do not mean to bait.

 

So in high school I took a course on race & ethnicity. In that course, we were taught this comforting idea that race didn't exist and that it was totally a human construct and that even two fruit flies were likely to be 10x more genetically diverse than any two humans blah blah blah. While this may be true, I think it doesn't mean that there are clear genetic differences between races. Follow my logic:

 

Psych 101 teaches you all about "us and them." Us is any group of which we are a part. Them is any group of which we are not a part. Take any group of people and split it. Us vs. Them inevitably develops, although not necessarily rancorously. Now take those two groups and switch some of the members. Some of them will retain loyalty to their original group, but the majority will adhere to the new group, and as time increases, so does the likelihood that adherence increases.

 

So "race" is largely a human construct, a way of ordering our unordered world, but it is also a way of distinguishing Us from Them. And it's arbitrary and often interchangeable.

 

 

1) Although "race" is a human construct in the sense that species is the lowest denominator biologically and we're all homo sapiens, that doesn't mean that what we know as races didn't evolve in isolated groups over the thousands of years they have been around to have significant genetic differences.

 

I would not use the word "evolve" as you have; rather, I would use the word "adapt," with the understanding that evolution is the result of adaptation over vast amounts of time. Humans haven't been on the scene long enough to have truly evolved beyond our humanity. We've adapted to climate, but that's about it. Those adaptations are not "significant," they are remarkably insignificant. "Significant" genetic variations would be the difference between a mule and a horse, or a tiger and a lion. Insignificant variations would be the difference between a Collie and a Dachshund.

 

Humans vary in size, shape and color, but aside from that, we're all still humans.

 

 

3) If there are differences in physical traits, there also must be differences in mental traits that would show in differences in a race's behaviors and intellect. These differences would have been selected for over time by natural or social pressures to whichever traits would be beneficial to survival in a particular environment.

 

This is a fallacy. There is no reason to suspect that there are differences in mental traits, by which I believe you mean mental ability or mental capacity. Across the board humans are inventive, curious, mentally fluid and adaptive. While certain climates and circumstances would necessitate differences in activities and therefore skill sets, that doesn't translate to differences in intelligence or capacity.

 

EDIT – just read x's response, and we're saying the same thing. I agree with him.

 

 

4) So, if there are differences on a mental level as well as a physical level, then how come we are taught that all races are the same or that race "doesn't exist"?

 

This premise is made false by the answer to #3.

 

 

For instance, we know that people of African descent have characteristically different muscles that are advantageous over muscles of other races, particularly in reflex ability and twitch. We can accept that, because that is an observable fact.

 

We can even delve deeper into our genetic differences and assert that different races, due to isolated genetic evolution, are more susceptible to certain genetic disorders and diseases than others. We can accept this too, because it is an observable fact.

 

However, how come it is incorrect to assert behaviors or intelligence to race? Sure we have to be a little bit different on a mental and behavioral level if we are already diverse on other genetic levels, even if that difference is minute.

 

Again I'll defer to x's response. He's got this answered pretty well.

[Husker_x]

While there are obviously genetic differences between people––and this means all people, not just based on skin color––you have to keep scale in front of you. For instance, we share 98% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, and we can't interbreed. We're even more similar in DNA to our fellow humans. So to talk about vast differences among our species is probably inaccurate in the first place.

 

 

 

 

damn.

 

I know, right. Sucks to be them.

 

[Manhattan]

 

This is a fallacy. There is no reason to suspect that there are differences in mental traits, by which I believe you mean mental ability or mental capacity. Across the board humans are inventive, curious, mentally fluid and adaptive. While certain climates and circumstances would necessitate differences in activities and therefore skill sets, that doesn't translate to differences in intelligence or capacity.

 

 

So, if there were a species that had the following behavioral characteristics among members of its species:

 

1) Very aggressive, or

2) Very cautious

 

And this species found itself in an environment where the very aggressive trait was selected for and all of the very cautious members of the group died out, the resulting dominant trait of this group wouldn't be that they developed into a group that has an overall behavioral trait of being very aggressive?

 

I mean, that is simplifying the idea, but I don't understand why the environment couldn't select for mental traits as well as physical ones.

[knapplc]

 

This is a fallacy. There is no reason to suspect that there are differences in mental traits, by which I believe you mean mental ability or mental capacity. Across the board humans are inventive, curious, mentally fluid and adaptive. While certain climates and circumstances would necessitate differences in activities and therefore skill sets, that doesn't translate to differences in intelligence or capacity.

 

 

So, if there were a species that had the following behavioral characteristics among members of its species:

 

1) Very aggressive, or

2) Very cautious

 

And this species found itself in an environment where the very aggressive trait was selected for and all of the very cautious members of the group died out, the resulting dominant trait of this group wouldn't be that they developed into a group that has an overall behavioral trait of being very aggressive?

 

I mean, that is simplifying the idea, but I don't understand why the environment couldn't select for mental traits as well as physical ones.

 

Make sure you note what I said (underlined) my understanding of your premise was. If that's not the case, this may not be the best direction for this thread to turn.

 

When we're talking about evolved brains being different, and having different mental capacities, I'm unaware of any data that suggest that any significant difference could occur between now and the 100K to 200K years since Homo Sapiens sapiens are thought to have arrived on the scene. That's an awfully short time frame for a detectable cognitive difference to have occurred. Further, as Husker_x stated earlier, there's nothing to show that a human baby taken from any current hunter/gatherer tribe would have difficulty mentally adapting to the modern world - in fact, quite the opposite.

 

I personally know people who come from very humble backgrounds in underdeveloped parts of the world who not only survive but thrive right here in Lincoln. I don't know of any deficiencies they have... but I can point to several deficiencies in my own sibling, who had the same rearing I did, the same education, and the same opportunities for advancement, yet who languishes in poverty and seems wholly incapable of relating to a modern Nebraska lifestyle.

[Manhattan]

Okay. I guess that clears up some confusion I had about the subject. It is hard to put these differences in genetics in perspective (because our genetics code is gigantic and developed over millions of years). Kind of like how most humans believe that a piece of paper folded 50 times over itself would be a few inches high, at most a few feet, but in reality, it would almost reach the Sun.

[M I K E]

Okay. I guess that clears up some confusion I had about the subject. It is hard to put these differences in genetics in perspective (because our genetics code is gigantic and developed over millions of years). Kind of like how most humans believe that a piece of paper folded 50 times over itself would be a few inches high, at most a few feet, but in reality, it would almost reach the Sun.

 

 

But in all seriousness, I'm glad you brought forth the question. It's important that people realize it's okay to pose questions like these for the purpose of further understanding.