posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
^ Interesting, didn't know race could be based on phenotype either. I know why I didn't know that - because thats BS too.

---

Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freehand:
^Incorrect, E1b1b underived is near nil outside of Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freehand:
Actually, they all share derivations at high frequencies.

If anything, E1b1b1a should be Sudanid or Nubianid (not Somalid), and if E1b1b must be defined geographically, it should at least be assigned so according to where it's most common: SUB-SAHARID, Grasslandsid if not Oromid or Boranid.

J should def. get Meditid tho.

And what about the female lineages?

---

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
^ Interesting, didn't know race could be based on phenotype either. I know why I didn't know that - because thats BS too.

---

I'll be honest. The reason I dislike racial terminolgy is because it is simply is too vague. Charts like so cover Eurasians vastly more than they cover anyone else. <----This despite the fact that Eurasians are genetically not so diverse relative to Africans especially. Eurasian races are incredibly specific; African races are incredibly broad.

Be real. Most of the races in that chart are separated by phenotype as much as they are haplogroup. In fact, the former almost definitely influenced the basis.

---

No I don't get the phenotype connection at all.

Haplogroup D is supposedly in the Australid race.

These people look just like Africans to me:



And a long with these Australid people these folks are suppose to be the same race as above:

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

No I don't get the phenotype connection at all.

---

Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

---

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freehand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

---

This whole thing is misleading, but anyways .. why is E sub-Saharid (it's really pan African-id) and E1b1b isn't?

---

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

This whole thing is misleading, but anyways .. why is E sub-Saharid (it's really pan African-id) and E1b1b isn't? [/QB]

---

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
^ why is it so difficult to come up with a term for African people?

---

Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:

quote:

---

No I don't get the phenotype connection at all.

---

Are you telling me that you don't see the irony of this post, given that you posted a chart that emphasises racial terminology and association with haplogroups? To me, it seems that for there to be racial groups there would have to at least be some sort of physical similarities within a group, and I believe the creator of the implied this when he made the chart. If I'm not mistaken, qualifications for a race are based on a common set of features (albeit not necessarily physical ones)

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Race can be defined in many way. Based on politics people choose one approach or another.

Race based on phenotype
Race based on common ancestor
Race based on genetic clines
Race based on language groups of origin

I think the genetic cline approach is more scientific than phenotype.

The Ainu look like Europeans but it is purely superficial. Olmec remains look like Africans but again just superficial.

---

quote:

---

John H. Relethford, Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 130(1): 16-22.


DO RACES EXIST?

Does the global pattern of phenotypic variation seen in
skin color and craniometric traits support the idea of
race? The answer depends on initial definitions and use
of the term ‘‘race.’’ On the one hand, the idea of discrete
races in the typological mindset of past centuries clearly
does not apply to humans (Templeton, 1998; Graves,
2001). There is, however, geographic patterning to
human biological variation, both for traits affected
strongly by natural selection, such as skin color, and for
traits whose distribution tends, on average, to be more
neutral, such as craniometrics and many genetic polymorphisms.
I suggest that typical uses of the concept of
geographic race today are simply crude labels imposed
upon this geographically structured variation. In that
sense, race is culturally constructed, as all labels are,
but it is also based on an underlying reality of biological
variation. Rather than argue about whether race is a
cultural construct (an idea that many unfortunately take
as being equivalent to a denial of variation) or that race
is ‘‘real,’’ it might be more useful to consider race as a
culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely
describes real variation.


Elsewhere (Relethford, 2008), I use an analogy of
human height to describe students the difference

between underlying reality and cultural labels. Adult
height in any human population can be described in
terms of a normal distribution, where height is a continuous
variable ranging from the shortest to the tallest
individual in the population. Even given this continuous
variation, in everyday use we often use labels such as
‘‘short,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘tall’’ as crude labels that are
imposed on the underlying continuous variation. The
relationship between the labels and the underlying reality
is accurate in the sense that someone who is ‘‘short’’
is by definition shorter from someone who is ‘‘tall.’’ This
relationship, however, is crude and imprecise. It is subjective
in terms of the number of possible groups (e.g.,
should we add ‘‘medium-short’’ and ‘‘very-tall’’?) and the
cutoffs used to define these groupings. For example,
what value separates a person of ‘‘medium’’ height from
a ‘‘tall’’ person? 1,800 mm?, 1,810 mm?, or 1806.25 mm?


My point is that we tend to use crude labels in everyday
life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective.
I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘‘short,’’
‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘tall’’ refer to discrete groups, or that
humanity only comes in three values of height!


If we consider these questions for the moment in
purely statistical terms, then we can see that the cultural
construction of race is the transformation of a continuous
variable into an ordinal-level or nominal-level
variable with the attendant loss of statistical information.
We do this all the time in both everyday life and
research, using groupings such as social class, high versus
low blood pressure, and liberal versus conservative
political ideologies, to name but a few examples. In all
such cases, the underlying variation is transformed into
a set of discrete categories. Political ideology in the
United States is an excellent example of the problems of
information loss when using discrete categories; the nature
of past elections has lead to a view of the United
States as being made up of ‘‘red states’’ and ‘‘blue states’’
even though the underlying variation is continuous
(Fiorina et al., 2005).


In such cases, the issue is whether reduction of continuous
variation into discrete groups is appropriate and
under what circumstances. In terms of the geographic
structure of human biological variation, there are times
when a crude division into major geographic regions
may be useful, whereas in other cases such groupings
would obscure too much of the variation, and analysis
would be better performed using the local population as
the unit of analysis. In some of my research, the objectives
of the study were satisfied by taking major geographic
regions, such as Europe and sub-Saharan Africa,
as the units of analysis (e.g., Relethford, 1994; Relethford
and Harpending, 1994). In other cases, such as
examining the specific relationship of phenotypic distance
and geography, local populations make better units
of analysis (e.g., Relethford, 2004a,b). Broad geographic
groupings might be useful in certain cases, such as a variety
of forensic contexts where one might simply want
to assign a specimen to a broad ancestral group. In other
cases, the situation might be different and using such
broad groupings would obscure too much variation. An
example here would be using broad groupings in genetic
studies of disease in African Americans, where the
actual level of African ancestry is highly variable (Parra
et al., 2001), even though most racial classifications
would place all individuals in the same category.


The final question is one of semantics. In cases where
broad geographic groups are used, should we refer to
these groups as ‘‘races’’ or should we use more politically
correct terms such as ‘‘geographic regions’’ or ‘‘geographic
clusters?’’ On the one hand, the very concept of
‘‘race’’ has such historical baggage that continued use of
the term tends to reify incorrect conceptions of human
variation. On the other hand, it is probably naive to
think that the term can be wiped from everyday use and
misuse. It might be more appropriate to answer the
questions about race by noting that race is a crude first order
approximation to human biological variation that
is arbitrary in terms of the number and definition of
races. As such, race may not provide the best way of
describing or analyzing human variation.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Race can be defined in many way. Based on politics people choose one approach or another.

Race based on phenotype
Race based on common ancestor
Race based on genetic clines
Race based on language groups of origin

I think the genetic cline approach is more scientific than phenotype.

The Ainu look like Europeans but it is purely superficial. Olmec remains look like Africans but again just superficial.

---

You say "Olmec remains look like Africans but again just superficial". This statement is illogical. If the skeletal remains of Olmecs resemble Africans--they must be African.




And the Ainu and Europeans do not resemble






Other Ainu


.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
[QB]
At least Sub-Saharid is more accurate in terms of regional description of the people that are E1b1a. Now the real question is on E1b1b.

This gets back to the political motivations of these terms. Saying Mediterranean clearly means White and has meant this for a very long time now. Saying Sub-Saharan means Black also.

---

quote:

---

I have had enough with my Somali brothers walking around calling Bantu people Apes and thinking they can join the KKK by posting stuff to Stormfront.

---

quote:

---

Their facial features are not uncommon amongst West African people.

---

Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Race can be defined in many way. Based on politics people choose one approach or another.

Race based on phenotype
Race based on common ancestor
Race based on genetic clines
Race based on language groups of origin

I think the genetic cline approach is more scientific than phenotype.

The Ainu look like Europeans but it is purely superficial. Olmec remains look like Africans but again just superficial.

---

You say "Olmec remains look like Africans but again just superficial". This statement is illogical. If the skeletal remains of Olmecs resemble Africans--they must be African.




And the Ainu and Europeans do not resemble






Other Ainu


.

---

The Ainu elder does not look like a normal Asiatic person at all. The hair and eye color to the high nose bridge. He resembles very much a Turkish person.



I think you can create a system of racial classification based on phenotype but it is going to have political consequences that will cause it to not be accepted.

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:
The irony is that this very chart was posted on stormfront by some "Somalid" with an agenda.

---

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:

quote:

---

No I don't get the phenotype connection at all.

---

Are you telling me that you don't see the irony of this post, given that you posted a chart that emphasises racial terminology and association with haplogroups? To me, it seems that for there to be racial groups there would have to at least be some sort of physical similarities within a group, and I believe the creator of the implied this when he made the chart. If I'm not mistaken, qualifications for a race are based on a common set of features (albeit not necessarily physical ones)

---

Races exist as proven by physical anthropologist who are forensic scientists.

Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race


Stephen Ousley 1 *, Richard Jantz 2, Donna Freid 2
1Department of Applied Forensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA
2Department of Anthropology, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

email: Stephen Ousley (sousley@mercyhurst.edu)

*Correspondence to Stephen Ousley, Department of Applied Forensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA

Keywords
race • craniometric variation • discriminant function analysis • forensic anthropology • classification


Abstract
American forensicanthropologists uncritically accepted the biological race concept from classic physical anthropology and applied it to methods of human identification. Why and how the biological race concept might work in forensic anthropology was contemplated by Sauer (Soc Sci Med 34 [1992] 107-111), who hypothesized that American forensic anthropologists are good at what they do because of a concordance between social race and skeletal morphology in American whites and blacks. However, Sauer also stressed that this concordance did not validate the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology that there are a relatively small number of discrete types of human beings. Results from Howells (Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 67 [1973] 1-259; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79 [1989] 1-189; Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 82 [1995] 1-108) and others using craniometric and molecular data show strong geographic patterning of human variation despite overlap in their distributions. However, Williams et al. (Curr Anthropol 46 [2005] 340-346) concluded that skeletal morphology cannot be used to accurately classify individuals. Williams et al. cited additional support from Lewontin (Evol Biol 6 [1972] 381-398), who analyzed classic genetic markers. In this study, multivariate analyses of craniometric data support Sauer's hypothesis that there are morphological differences between American whites and blacks. We also confirm significant geographic patterning in human variation but also find differences among groups within continents. As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology.

American Journal of Physical Anthropologyn (2009)
Volume 139 Issue 1, Pages 68 -


.

---

quote:

---

Sauer’s (1992) additional suggestion that differences in American blacks and whites did not validate the traditional
biological race concept is likewise supported by our results. On a worldwide scale, humans show geographically patterned variation when classified as groups andindividuals, and although there is a good deal of overlap between groups and much variation within groups, individuals and groups can nonetheless be classified at a rate far greater than chance on the group and regional level.
. . .

Why was biological race considered an explanation for human differences, and why does it remain so for some? The socially inherited concept of race no doubt shapes interpretations, but so do interpretations of any inherent differences among human groups. Examining variation in different combinations of groups reveals a confirmation bias for the variable that is used to define groups, most often biological race. Craniometric comparisons of various groups from Ousley and Jantz (2002) are shown in Table 4 and the first few examples may seem to support traditional racial divisions of mankind. In the first comparison, biological race seems to be the reason that white
and black males are different, because we assume that race is the controlling variable, the primary difference between them. When Chinese and Native American groups are added, results are still consistent with the traditional race concept. But in the third example, if Japanese are substituted for Chinese, the accuracy decreases because black and Japanese males tend to misclassify as each other. Further classifications in Table 4 among groups traditionally considered part of the same biological race were also highly accurate. A three-way DFA using
Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese males classifies them quite well, but the differences among them are in language and nationality. Females from two Native American tribes, Arikara and Sioux, can be classified quite accurately, and tribe or language defines each sample. Within Japan, DFA can differentiate between modern Japanese from the north (Tohoku) and south (Nagasaki) even better, and in this case the groups are defined by geography. These differences parallel those between the Howells North and South Japanese males. Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different
races. In all of these analyses, the groups were categorized by a variable and differences were found. While race has been traditionally used to explain why the groups are different, time as an explanation may be more difficult to grasp. But time per se is not the reason the two groups are different. Time in this example is correlated with vast improvements in nutrition, medical care, and hygiene in the US, which have produced secular changes in the later population. Relaxed selection and gene flow from new immigrants may have also contributed to the changes. The northern-southern dichotomy seen in modern Japanese represents considerable variation within Japan in
other biological systems as well. These examples demonstrate that though the group qualifiers change, the qualification is not directly related to why the groups are different. In the first two examples, race does not directly explain differences, just as language per se does not, nor does region, nor geography, nor distance, nor tribe, nor time. Instead, all of these comparisons involve differently defined populations with different origins or histories. Each of the defining variables is arbitrary but is related to differences in origins, histories, environments, and reproductive barriers. Groups separated through social mechanisms, language, geography, or time can differentiate due
to genetic drift and other evolutionary forces, and those qualifiers were likely factors restricting gene flow among the groups.
. . .

Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic
patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. Given this fact and the many populations with unique histories, it makes sense to collect data from as many populations as possible to aid in accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker
et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems and traits, the distribution and number of biological races will change. There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races, only populations.’’

---

Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology....

---

...to which Dr. Winters adhere's out of such desparate blindness, that he will quote this study as supporting the classic concept of phenotypical races....and simply ignore the above statement directly refuting it.

Same old Dr. Winters.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

DISCUSSION
Our analyses of craniometric variation in black and
white Americans using several multivariate statistical
methods support Sauer’s (1992) conclusion that objective
morphological differences exist between American whites
and blacks. We have demonstrated a concordance between
social race and cranial morphology, at least in 20th century
American blacks and whites. Other skeletal studies
have reached similar conclusions (Edgar, 2002; Konigsberg
and Jantz, 2002; Ousley and McKeown, 2003). Craniometric
differences between American blacks and
whites have not diminished since the 19th century,
though both groups have changed since then (Wescott and
Jantz, 2005).

The probable reasons for biological differences
should be familiar to many. American blacks and
whites originated from different continents, and American
blacks are largely composed of West African groups transported
to the US for the slave trade. Europeans and
Africans had been separated and experiencing different
evolutionary forces for tens of thousands of years before
migrating to the US. The high accuracy of the two-way
DFA between the pooled Howells European and sub-
Saharan African groups indicates they likely had differentiated.
As mentioned, institutional racism and assortative
mating within social race has prevented significant gene
flow between them, which would make them more similar.


Part of the reason for the disagreement between forensic
and biological anthropologists has been in their different
approaches and goals. Forensic anthropologists answer
practical questions of age, sex, and race to construct
the biological profile and narrow down possible identifications.
In examining American blacks and whites, forensic
anthropologists would naturally think in terms of two biological
races because of the concordance between social
and morphological race. Identifying social race, available
in missing persons reports, would be the stopping point.
Biological anthropologists would explore within-group
variation further. These findings illustrate the essential
difference between a forensic analysis and a biological
analysis: forensic analysis produces practical information
useful for forensic identification, while a biological analysis
provides insight about relationships among arbitrarily
defined populations, which may be defined by social races,
breeding populations, language, nationality, time periods,
and other criteria.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
The Howells craniometric data provide a rich data set
for testing hypotheses about human variation. Another
significant advantage to the Howells data is the large
number of variables collected. As we demonstrated, the
number of variables analyzed affects classification accuracy.
There is an obvious parallel in examining one genetic
system such as ABO blood group and drawing conclusions
based on that single system. Lewontin’s (1972) conclusions
were likewise based on univariate frequencies from
a few genetic systems. However, as we and others have
shown, many measures of human variation are correlated,
requiring multivariate methods. The Howells data also
has no interobserver errors, which likely explain the
anomalous results of Williams et al. (2005).
In investigating the connection between social race
and biology, it is clear that race in the US is a social
phenomenon with biological consequences due to positive
assortative mating and institutional racism: whatever
differences there were between ancestral groups from
Europe and Africa were not obliterated because of very
low historic gene flow between them in the US, despite
theoretical and historical reasons why social races may
not reflect biology. In this regard, race (i.e., the history
of American race relations) helps explain modern craniometric
variation in American blacks and whites.
Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic
patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness
is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large
number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric
data alone. Given this fact and the many populations
with unique histories, it makes sense to collect
data from as many populations as possible to aid in
accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker
et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems
and traits, the distribution and number of biological
races will change. There are so many possible distinctive
biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless.
We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification
of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races,
only populations.’’

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, if biological races are defined by uniqueness, then there are a very large number of biological races that can be defined, contradicting the classic biological race concept of physical anthropology....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...to which Dr. Winters adhere's out of such desparate blindness, that he will quote this study as supporting the classic concept of phenotypical races....and simply ignore the above statement directly refuting it.

Same old Dr. Winters.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzalcoatl you are such a liar. The author made it clear races exist.

Ousley, S., R. Jantz, and D. Fried 2009 “Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race,” [American Journal of Physical Antropology 139:68–76

quote:

---

DISCUSSION
Our analyses of craniometric variation in black and
white Americans using several multivariate statistical
methods support Sauer’s (1992) conclusion that objective
morphological differences exist between American whites
and blacks. We have demonstrated a concordance between
social race and cranial morphology, at least in 20th century
American blacks and whites. Other skeletal studies
have reached similar conclusions (Edgar, 2002; Konigsberg
and Jantz, 2002; Ousley and McKeown, 2003). Craniometric
differences between American blacks and
whites have not diminished since the 19th century,
though both groups have changed since then (Wescott and
Jantz, 2005).

The probable reasons for biological differences
should be familiar to many. American blacks and
whites originated from different continents, and American
blacks are largely composed of West African groups transported
to the US for the slave trade. Europeans and
Africans had been separated and experiencing different
evolutionary forces for tens of thousands of years before
migrating to the US. The high accuracy of the two-way
DFA between the pooled Howells European and sub-
Saharan African groups indicates they likely had differentiated.
As mentioned, institutional racism and assortative
mating within social race has prevented significant gene
flow between them, which would make them more similar.


Part of the reason for the disagreement between forensic
and biological anthropologists has been in their different
approaches and goals. Forensic anthropologists answer
practical questions of age, sex, and race to construct
the biological profile and narrow down possible identifications.
In examining American blacks and whites, forensic
anthropologists would naturally think in terms of two biological
races because of the concordance between social
and morphological race. Identifying social race, available
in missing persons reports, would be the stopping point.
Biological anthropologists would explore within-group
variation further. These findings illustrate the essential
difference between a forensic analysis and a biological
analysis: forensic analysis produces practical information
useful for forensic identification, while a biological analysis
provides insight about relationships among arbitrarily
defined populations, which may be defined by social races,
breeding populations, language, nationality, time periods,
and other criteria.

---

You only published part of the author’s conclusion. Here is the full conclusion

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
The Howells craniometric data provide a rich data set
for testing hypotheses about human variation. Another
significant advantage to the Howells data is the large
number of variables collected. As we demonstrated, the
number of variables analyzed affects classification accuracy.
There is an obvious parallel in examining one genetic
system such as ABO blood group and drawing conclusions
based on that single system. Lewontin’s (1972) conclusions
were likewise based on univariate frequencies from
a few genetic systems. However, as we and others have
shown, many measures of human variation are correlated,
requiring multivariate methods. The Howells data also
has no interobserver errors, which likely explain the
anomalous results of Williams et al. (2005).
In investigating the connection between social race
and biology, it is clear that race in the US is a social
phenomenon with biological consequences due to positive
assortative mating and institutional racism: whatever
differences there were between ancestral groups from
Europe and Africa were not obliterated because of very
low historic gene flow between them in the US, despite
theoretical and historical reasons why social races may
not reflect biology. In this regard, race (i.e., the history
of American race relations) helps explain modern craniometric
variation in American blacks and whites.
Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic
patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness
is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large
number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric
data alone. Given this fact and the many populations
with unique histories, it makes sense to collect
data from as many populations as possible to aid in
accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker
et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems
and traits, the distribution and number of biological
races will change. There are so many possible distinctive
biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless.
We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification
of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races,
only populations.’’

---

It is clear from this study that races exist.

Quetzacoatl…. You Great Deciever You……

---

Clyde,
You are so funny

The point the article makes is that using craniometry you can create so many "races" that the concept becomes meaningless.
That is what the article ends with

quote:

---

here are so many possible distinctive
biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless.
We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification
of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races,
only populations.’’

---

quote:

---

Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races.

---

Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzalcoatl you are such a liar. The author made it clear races exist.

Ousley, S., R. Jantz, and D. Fried 2009 “Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race,” [American Journal of Physical Antropology 139:68–76

quote:

---

DISCUSSION
Our analyses of craniometric variation in black and
white Americans using several multivariate statistical
methods support Sauer’s (1992) conclusion that objective
morphological differences exist between American whites
and blacks. We have demonstrated a concordance between
social race and cranial morphology, at least in 20th century
American blacks and whites. Other skeletal studies
have reached similar conclusions (Edgar, 2002; Konigsberg
and Jantz, 2002; Ousley and McKeown, 2003). Craniometric
differences between American blacks and
whites have not diminished since the 19th century,
though both groups have changed since then (Wescott and
Jantz, 2005).

The probable reasons for biological differences
should be familiar to many. American blacks and
whites originated from different continents, and American
blacks are largely composed of West African groups transported
to the US for the slave trade. Europeans and
Africans had been separated and experiencing different
evolutionary forces for tens of thousands of years before
migrating to the US. The high accuracy of the two-way
DFA between the pooled Howells European and sub-
Saharan African groups indicates they likely had differentiated.
As mentioned, institutional racism and assortative
mating within social race has prevented significant gene
flow between them, which would make them more similar.


Part of the reason for the disagreement between forensic
and biological anthropologists has been in their different
approaches and goals. Forensic anthropologists answer
practical questions of age, sex, and race to construct
the biological profile and narrow down possible identifications.
In examining American blacks and whites, forensic
anthropologists would naturally think in terms of two biological
races because of the concordance between social
and morphological race. Identifying social race, available
in missing persons reports, would be the stopping point.
Biological anthropologists would explore within-group
variation further. These findings illustrate the essential
difference between a forensic analysis and a biological
analysis: forensic analysis produces practical information
useful for forensic identification, while a biological analysis
provides insight about relationships among arbitrarily
defined populations, which may be defined by social races,
breeding populations, language, nationality, time periods,
and other criteria.

---

You only published part of the author’s conclusion. Here is the full conclusion

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS
The Howells craniometric data provide a rich data set
for testing hypotheses about human variation. Another
significant advantage to the Howells data is the large
number of variables collected. As we demonstrated, the
number of variables analyzed affects classification accuracy.
There is an obvious parallel in examining one genetic
system such as ABO blood group and drawing conclusions
based on that single system. Lewontin’s (1972) conclusions
were likewise based on univariate frequencies from
a few genetic systems. However, as we and others have
shown, many measures of human variation are correlated,
requiring multivariate methods. The Howells data also
has no interobserver errors, which likely explain the
anomalous results of Williams et al. (2005).
In investigating the connection between social race
and biology, it is clear that race in the US is a social
phenomenon with biological consequences due to positive
assortative mating and institutional racism: whatever
differences there were between ancestral groups from
Europe and Africa were not obliterated because of very
low historic gene flow between them in the US, despite
theoretical and historical reasons why social races may
not reflect biology. In this regard, race (i.e., the history
of American race relations) helps explain modern craniometric
variation in American blacks and whites.
Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic
patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness
is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large
number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric
data alone. Given this fact and the many populations
with unique histories, it makes sense to collect
data from as many populations as possible to aid in
accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker
et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems
and traits, the distribution and number of biological
races will change. There are so many possible distinctive
biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless.
We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification
of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races,
only populations.’’

---

It is clear from this study that races exist.

Quetzacoatl…. You Great Deciever You……

---

Clyde,
You are so funny

The point the article makes is that using craniometry you can create so many "races" that the concept becomes meaningless.
That is what the article ends with

quote:

---

here are so many possible distinctive
biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless.
We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification
of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races,
only populations.’’

---

For example using this set of measurements European whites born at different times are also different "races" From the article:

quote:

---

Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races.

---

I bet you that using this methodology East Africans would be a different "race" than West Africans.

It is so sad to see you so blinded by your biases that you can't read properly. Hopefully other members of ES can read what the articles really say.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I bet you that using this methodology East Africans would be a different "race" than West Africans.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I bet you that using this methodology East Africans would be a different "race" than West Africans.

---

Isn't this essentially what you argue in your mumblings de Montellano?

---

Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

No

There are NO biological races. All my comment was pointing out is that, according to the methods in the paper cited by Clyde, whites born a few years apart would qualify as separate "races" i.e. one can generate so many "races" through craniology that the concept becomes meaningless for making the kind of distinctions that Winters wants to make.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzalcoatl

quote:

---

No

There are NO biological races. All my comment was pointing out is that, according to the methods in the paper cited by Clyde, whites born a few years apart would qualify as separate "races" i.e. one can generate so many "races" through craniology that the concept becomes meaningless for making the kind of distinctions that Winters wants to make.

---

You liar

---

quote:

---

p. 74 Why was biological race considered an explanation for human differences, and why does it remain so for some? The socially inherited concept of race no doubt shapes interpretations, but so do interpretations of any inherent differences among human groups. Examining variation in different combinations of groups reveals a confirmation bias for the variable that is used to define groups, most often biological race. Craniometric comparisons of various groups from Ousley and Jantz (2002) are shown in Table 4 and the first few examples may seem to support traditional racial divisions of mankind. In the first comparison, biological race seems to be the reason that white and black males are different, because we assume that race is the controlling variable, the primary difference between them. When Chinese and Native American groups are added, results are still consistent with the traditional race concept. But in the third example, if Japanese are substituted for Chinese, the accuracy decreases because black and Japanese males tend to misclassify as each other. Further classifications in Table 4 among groups traditionally considered part of the same biological race were also highly accurate. A three-way DFA using Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese males classifies them quite well, but the differences among them are in language and nationality.

---

quote:

---

Females from two Native American tribes, Arikara and Sioux, can be classified quite accurately, and tribe or language defines each sample. Within Japan, DFA can differentiate between modern Japanese from the north (Tohoku) and south (Nagasaki) even better, and in this case the groups are defined by geography. These differences parallel those between the Howells North and South Japanese males. Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races.

---

quote:

---

In all of these analyses, the groups were categorized by a variable and differences were found. While race has been traditionally used to explain why the groups are different, time as an explanation may be more difficult to grasp. But time per se is not the reason the two groups are different. Time in this example is correlated with vast improvements in nutrition, medical care, and hygiene in the US, which have produced secular changes in the later population. Relaxed selection and gene flow from new immigrants may have also contributed to the changes. The northern-southern dichotomy seen in modern Japanese represents considerable variation within Japan in other biological systems as well. These examples demonstrate that though the group qualifiers change, the qualification is not directly related to why the groups are different. In the first two examples, race does not directly explain differences, just as language per se does not, nor does region, nor geography, nor distance, nor tribe, nor time. Instead, all of these comparisons involve differently defined populations with different origins or histories. Each of the defining variables is arbitrary but is related to differences in origins, histories, environments, and reproductive barriers. Groups separated through social mechanisms, language, geography, or time can differentiate due to genetic drift and other evolutionary forces, and those qualifiers were likely factors restricting gene flow among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
. . .
Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. Given this fact and the many populations with unique histories, it makes sense to collect data from as many populations as possible to aid in accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems and traits, the distribution and number of biological races will change.

---

quote:

---

There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races, only populations.’’

---

Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races, only populations.’’

---

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I bet you that using this methodology East Africans would be a different "race" than West Africans.

---

Isn't this essentially what you argue in your mumblings de Montellano?

---

No

There are NO biological races. All my comment was pointing out is that, according to the methods in the paper cited by Clyde, whites born a few years apart would qualify as separate "races" i.e. one can generate so many "races" through craniology that the concept becomes meaningless for making the kind of distinctions that Winters wants to make.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
I bet you that using this methodology East Africans would be a different "race" than West Africans.

---

Isn't this essentially what you argue in your mumblings de Montellano?

---

No

There are NO biological races. All my comment was pointing out is that, according to the methods in the paper cited by Clyde, whites born a few years apart would qualify as separate "races" i.e. one can generate so many "races" through craniology that the concept becomes meaningless for making the kind of distinctions that Winters wants to make.

---

Don't be a hypocrite de Montellano, you argue the Brace (1993) racist study for gods sake! Or are you backtracking from it?

---

quote:

---

Human biological variation is real, and its study is a most interesting subject. However, we can make no sense of it if we start with "racial" categories as entities for comparison. Traits that are of importance for human survival are distributed in clinal fashion according to the distribution of the selective forces that govern their expression. Those selective forces, in turn, are not constrained by human population boundaries and cannot be perceived or understood if such boundaries are assumed as the starting points for analysis.



There are traits that are constrained by human population boundaries, and it is these that allow us to recognize the part of the world from which their possessors originally came. Those traits, however, simply constitute 'family resemblance writ large' end have no adaptive significance. Population samples will cluster with their nearest neighbors because they share the genetic background for such adaptively unimportant traits. The best way to refer to people who display the configuration characteristic of the clusters of population samples that come from the same region is to use geographical designations. Thus people can be identified as African, or Australian, or European and the like. More precise localization can be achieved by using modifiers such as West African, Eastern European, and Southeast Asian among any others.



Data relating to the distribution of Hemoglobin S, skin color and tooth size are presented to show how each responds to the varying intensity of the particular selective force controlling its manifestation. The independence of the clines associated with each one demonstrates the futility of trying to use a concept such as "race" to understand adaptively important human biological characteristics. Finally, the case of intelligence is considered, and it is noted that, while no human population today is living under the circumstances that shaped the common human condition during the Pleistocene, it is still largely true that it takes at least as much intelligence to survive and contribute to the next generation in one part of the world as it does in another. Since the conditions governing the emergence of our extraordinary human brain power were essentially everywhere the same during the long period of time when human intelligence was evolving, it follows that the intellectual capabilities of the various living human populations in the world are now also everywhere the same. Those who continue to advocate the value of investigating "racial" difference in intelligence, then, are evidently driven by a subjective desire to demonstrate that difference is to be expected. At bottom, that expectation is simply a manifestation of racism.

---

Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Quetzalcoatl

quote:

---

No

There are NO biological races. All my comment was pointing out is that, according to the methods in the paper cited by Clyde, whites born a few years apart would qualify as separate "races" i.e. one can generate so many "races" through craniology that the concept becomes meaningless for making the kind of distinctions that Winters wants to make.

---

You liar

---

Insults are the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
You should quote more completely and particularly the Conclusions, which are the "bottom line" of the paper.

Ousley, S., R. Jantz, and D. Fried 2009 “Understanding Race and Human Variation: Why Forensic Anthropologists are Good at Identifying Race,” [American Journal of Physical Antropology 139:68–76

quote:

---

p. 74 Why was biological race considered an explanation for human differences, and why does it remain so for some? The socially inherited concept of race no doubt shapes interpretations, but so do interpretations of any inherent differences among human groups. Examining variation in different combinations of groups reveals a confirmation bias for the variable that is used to define groups, most often biological race. Craniometric comparisons of various groups from Ousley and Jantz (2002) are shown in Table 4 and the first few examples may seem to support traditional racial divisions of mankind. In the first comparison, biological race seems to be the reason that white and black males are different, because we assume that race is the controlling variable, the primary difference between them. When Chinese and Native American groups are added, results are still consistent with the traditional race concept. But in the third example, if Japanese are substituted for Chinese, the accuracy decreases because black and Japanese males tend to misclassify as each other. Further classifications in Table 4 among groups traditionally considered part of the same biological race were also highly accurate. A three-way DFA using Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese males classifies them quite well, but the differences among them are in language and nationality.

---

i.e. craniology classifies these three groups as if they were different races. Continuing the quote

quote:

---

Females from two Native American tribes, Arikara and Sioux, can be classified quite accurately, and tribe or language defines each sample. Within Japan, DFA can differentiate between modern Japanese from the north (Tohoku) and south (Nagasaki) even better, and in this case the groups are defined by geography. These differences parallel those between the Howells North and South Japanese males. Finally, white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races.

---

i.e. the Sioux and Arikara seem like different races, and so do southern vs. northern Japanese and 1840-1890 whites vs 1930-1980 whites. The fact that this happens and that a multitude of "races" can be found negates the traditional (and what Clyde wants to uphold) idea that a "race" is a group of genetically related individuals with common descent such that there are unique "white", "black" and "Asian or Yellow" races. Here we have 2 "races" of Europeans that were born at different times or 2 races of Japanese-- one southern and one northern. Continuing:

quote:

---

In all of these analyses, the groups were categorized by a variable and differences were found. While race has been traditionally used to explain why the groups are different, time as an explanation may be more difficult to grasp. But time per se is not the reason the two groups are different. Time in this example is correlated with vast improvements in nutrition, medical care, and hygiene in the US, which have produced secular changes in the later population. Relaxed selection and gene flow from new immigrants may have also contributed to the changes. The northern-southern dichotomy seen in modern Japanese represents considerable variation within Japan in other biological systems as well. These examples demonstrate that though the group qualifiers change, the qualification is not directly related to why the groups are different. In the first two examples, race does not directly explain differences, just as language per se does not, nor does region, nor geography, nor distance, nor tribe, nor time. Instead, all of these comparisons involve differently defined populations with different origins or histories. Each of the defining variables is arbitrary but is related to differences in origins, histories, environments, and reproductive barriers. Groups separated through social mechanisms, language, geography, or time can differentiate due to genetic drift and other evolutionary forces, and those qualifiers were likely factors restricting gene flow among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
. . .
Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. Given this fact and the many populations with unique histories, it makes sense to collect data from as many populations as possible to aid in accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems and traits, the distribution and number of biological races will change.

---

The next sentence is the final sentence of the paper, i.e. the bottom line

quote:

---

There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races, only populations.’’

---

The final conclusion of the paper is that the concept [of race] is virtually meaningless. Clyde can spin, dance, and spam as much as he wants but readers of ES can read the conclusion of this paper for themselves.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged |