Back to [Archive] Trashbin / test

[OBG] Nature of Race (merged)
Section 5 :

(EDIT: I have forgotten to copy paste the changes you have made; but you should post that in the thread, not just by email)

Section IV: "The THRs correspond with ecotypic races/subspecies when ecotypes are broadly understood to be environmentally adapted subdivisions of a species. Since virtually all geographical races are, as aggregates, adapted to the regions in which they evolved, they fit this definition. This broad formulation was expressed by Mayr (1970), when he noted that "not a single geographic race is known that is not also an ecological race”, or by Dobzhansky (1970) when he wrote, "Is there a difference between a geographic race and an ecotype? To a large extent the two terms are synonymous.” As some envision the ecotype concept more narrowly, whether the THRs constitute ecotypes depends on the specific concept employed. This issue is discussed more in section V-B.

Section V "Of course, they are only able to make this case with regards to ecotype by narrowly understanding the concept. In their hurry to dismiss 'folk races', they miss a broader understanding of the ecotypic concept, one which does not exclude “phylogenetically divergent subspecies” or the like. There has been a long history of such usage. To give some examples:

[Ecotypes] parallel, but are not nearly always identical with, the geographic subspecies... As in ecospecies, it is sometimes necessary to include more than one ecotype in a subspecies, stating that it consists of certain ecotypes that appear ecologically important but are morphologically indistinguishable. The objective is to have limits of subspecies (a morphologic term) correspond to the limits of one or a group of several ecotypes (an experimental term). (Clausen, et al., 1939).

The ecotype as defined by Turesson is any assemblage of organisms which genotypically reflects the selective action of environment, and may represent anything from a small colonial community to a large regional race....The term ecotype is therefore a general one covering assemblages of very different taxonomic significance. (Gregor, 1944)

Ecotype: subdivision of an ecospecies, comparable to a subspecies or geographic race and consisting of an isolated population selectively adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions" (ecotype. (n.d.). The American Heritage Science Dictionary)

In any case, the ground finch lineage seems to represent, on at least some islands and at least some times, ecological races rather than species (Zink 2002)… We usually do not class these ecotypes or races as species… Nonetheless, while most actual ecological races probably never reach the status of species, some ecological races are likely to speciate as they already maintain the linkage disequilibria needed to evolve further speciation-related traits (Felsenstein 1981), leading to assortative mating. It does not seem unlikely that speciation via this route is the source of most new and successful species. (Mallet, 2008)

Races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e., are geographically separated). (Coyne, 2012)

The gist is that the two concepts, ecotype and “phylogenetically divergent subspecies”, overlap. Thus, Clausen’s ecotypes can correspond with taxonomic category subspecies, Gregor’s ecotypes can be regional races, Mallet’s ecological races can be lineages which can speciate, and Coyne’s human divisions are both subspecies and ecotypes. Not all ecotypes ae races (i.e., genealogy-based units), let alone formally recognized ones. Yet, taxonomic subspecies and large regional races can be – and arguably always are (e.g., Mayr (1970)) – ecotypes.

Granted, some have argued that ecotypes “are not taxonomic units” (Cronin et al. 2009) and “do not necessarily share common ancestry and should not be classified as taxonomic groups” (Lyon et al. (2014)). If these authors mean that ecotypes necessarily are not phylogenetic units, then they are using a concept different from the original. Whatever the case, it can not be denied that “ecotype” has a long history of being used, at times, to describe something “like phylogenetically divergent subspecies”. So any argument against the recognition of broad regional groups as ecotypic races rests on a narrow reading of the concept. And any claim that ecotypes which do not correspond with genealogical unites are races, misapplies, with respect to typical usage, the term “race”.

I agree with the changes you've made (pp 114-115) concerning the matter with regard to Pigliucci & Kaplan's point (b). You have elaborated and clarified your previous argument. You showed convincingly why "The gist is that the two concepts, ecotype and “phylogenetically divergent subspecies”, overlap.". So, I appreciate. That said, I don't disagree with that argument. My point was that you have misunderstood what they meant by folk races (their point (a)). So, I agree with their point (a) but disagree with their point (b). I think point (a) is irrelevant, however, because their folk races are not the biological races you are attempting to defend. As soon as you don't misapply the term folk race, I'm fine.

I don't have any other request concerning Section 5. I will just ask you to change ...

Not all ecotypes ae races

... ae into are.

And not to forget the quotation mark on the quote from the The American Heritage Science Dictionary.

Aside from all the psychologizing ("racists" "fit their preconceived ideas for racist ends"), I'm curious about the claim that non-Hispanic Whites does fit fit the genomic cluster. It seems to me that this is exactly what it does. Non-Hispanic White is identical with European as far as I know, which of course emerges as a cluster.

I think the answer is provided somewhere in section 2 :

Correspondence with historic continental-level race is not, of course, a prerequisite for constituting different biological races. What is is that groups cut out different natural divisions with respect to each other. An analysis by Tang et al. (2005) suggested that “white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic” ethno-racial groups in the U.S. more or less do – that is, they cut out distinct genomic divisions. As the authors noted, though, the Hispanic group in their sample was based on a Mexican-American one. When using a more diverse Hispanic sample, another research group (Lao et al., 2010) found that the Hispanic ethnic groups did not form a discrete cluster but rather overlapped with the other groups (in this case, Europeans, East Asians, and Africans). This is not unexpected since, across Latin America, there is substantial heterogeneity in historic continental-level racial admixture. Given the genomic heterogeneity in their region of origin, it is probably better to understand U.S. Hispanics as representing a cultural group. If they are called a “race”, they would be a non-biological, sociological one. More generally, it is probably best to understand U.S. sociological races (and ethnic groups) as overlapping with -- to some degree or another – not constituting biological races.

So, I don't understand either what Kaplan meant by

"non-Hispanic Whites" is not a genomic cluster.
I'm extremely bothered, annoyed. Again, what's the use of this thread ? Think about how the journal will refer to the review thread. Usually, it's something like :

You asked me to post the full paper. I did.

You should read my comment carefully. I asked for a full version to be uploaded, but never asked to create another (useless) thread. I said that many times, and I explained here why it's not making any sense. But if Emil is going to merge everything now, I hope everyone here will edit their own messages. Because I expect something bad would happen.

Consider for example :

post1 : Meng Hu commenting on section 2
post2 : Chuck replying to post1
post3 : Peter Frost commenting on section 4
post4 : Chuck replying to post3
post5 : Meng Hu replying to post2

If none of these posts use quotation (as it happened sometimes), it's not easy to follow the conversation. One can easily get lost.

I suggest to add a short message at the top of the post, such as :

This is a comment to Chuck's at 03-22-2015, 01:51 AM.

By the way, I insist that the abstract is not actually what I can call an abstract. Rework that. The abstract is important to the extent that it gives a short overview of the argument you're making. Curiously, the Introduction looks like an abstract.

There is, of course, an element of truth to all four of the stated claims; for example, the word “race” indeed has no unique definition; anyone can choose to feel that whatever genetically based differences exist between human populations are not meaningful; there are race concepts which are fundamentally non-biological; and there are biological race concepts (frequently made of straw) by which there are no human biological races. All of this is true, and rather trivial, but since statements 1 through 4

If you write statements 1 through 4, you should do that :

(1) for example, the word “race” indeed ...; (2) anyone can choose to feel that ...; (3) there are race concepts which are ...; (4) and there are biological race concepts ... .

Furthermore, where's the name of the journal ? The presentation is bad and does not follow the guidelines. For example, the size of the title, which should be 24 and in bold, the size of the author's name which should have a size of 16, etc. And whether it's a commentary, research article, etc.

You do what you want, but I don't understand the logo CC by NC. If all of the papers published here has no such CC logo, I can guess that the readers will wonder why it is applied inconsistently in OP journals.



I. Biology -- A Philosophical Clarification………………………………………………………..4
I-A. Existing Views: Confusions Abound
I-B. Biological Concepts in General
I-C. The Validity of Biological Concepts

I don't really like that presentation, but if you want to page number the sections, you should also do that for all the sections; I-A, I-B, I-C, etc.
Here is a test version of the merged thread. I made a copy of each thread into the test forum and merged them into this one thread. All posts are in chronological order. Any objections?

CC NC is the copyright notice. It means that it free to share and that parts can be reused for non-commercial purposes without asking permission. OP journals does not take over the copyright of the authors, so they must declare whatever license they publish stuff as.
I have no objection. But right now, Chuck and Peter Frost continue to post comments on the separate 6/7 existing threads. Perhaps try to merge them once the paper gets 3 approvals.
I can just merge them into one thread. As you said, this can get confusing when they reply to each other without quoting, or using the "Reply" function. However, since the replies are nearby in time, they should not be too difficult to find.

Before I merge, I want John's approval too.
I can just merge them into one thread. As you said, this can get confusing when they reply to each other without quoting, or using the "Reply" function. However, since the replies are nearby in time, they should not be too difficult to find.

Before I merge, I want John's approval too.

Yes do this. Peter has approved. Our discussion is over.