| sundin13 said: How exactly do you take the assertion that there are genetic differences between certain populations to be a refutation of the idea that there are genetic differences between certain populations? My argument was not and has never been that genetic differences between geographical locations do not exist. My argument was instead, the exact divisions elucidating how to break apart humanity into "geographical races" are not clear or exact. I demonstrated this by using the example of Finland, which is full of white people, yet fits the literal definition for a separate "geographical race". They are geographically separated by distance and they are distinguishable through genetic characteristics. So, since you seem to have not only ignored my question, but somehow interpreted it as saying the exact opposite of what it actually said, I will ask it again: Because we can separate out the Finnish based on genetic characteristics from other white populations, should they be considered a different race? EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that the study you quoted is not a study about race. It is a study about ancestry, and these two concepts are not the same. "Because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race."
Also, it is worth noting that "Lewontin's fallacy" isn't really a true "fallacy". It is more of an argument than the identification of a true logical fallacy. And it certainly hasn't been the final step in this debate. In 2015, a group of researchers (who had once criticized Lewontin's research) used more sophisticated methodology to conclude: "In sum, we concur with Lewontin’s conclusion that Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance, and we hope that this research, which takes into account our current understanding of the structure of human diversity, places his seminal finding on firmer evolutionary footing".
My argument however more closely mirrors that of Kaplan and Graves, who state "that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in Western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese)". |
@Bold Even better, let's just have our "macro" population group which corresponds to each major continent to be defined as our "geographical races" and then have these "micro" population groups which corresponds with "ethnicity/nationality" ... (well you could split up races by "ethnicity" but I just choose to define our current understanding of "geographical races" as genetic drift across populations based on continental boundaries since it fits with our data and is a much simpler reduction)
Skewed allele frequencies among certain populations are key to identifying "races" and that by itself major biological significance since there are real world medical applications that are based on this concept!
