The Biological Case Against Race

American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

[winin2000]

Believe it or not, the son of wealthy black parents who engage in typically wealthy behavior will produce a score on a par with the white kid across the street, and that will be somewhat higher than the mean.

Not true. No matter what factor you'd like to hold constant: socioeconomic status, an intact family, educational quality, and on and on, the gaps persist.

If you could link to your source, I'd be pleased to read it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Once you give it up, race becomes useless as an analytical tool because it's not doing any explanatory work.

It's no accident that Shaq is a black male.

[Nebullis]

If humans had biological races, there should be some non-trivial underlying hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups, or possibly average differences that could be made sense of in some statistical way.

And what can these hereditary features be? The article looks only at genetic differences and completely ignores the profound differences found in expression patterns. It is those changes in expression patterns which account for the augmented variation between humans and chimps in such areas as physical, behavioral, and cognitive expression.

Furthermore, considering that we don't even know what genetic sequences in the human genome are meaningful and how (for instance, there is a 2-3 fold spread in opinion about how many genes are contained in the human genome), it is far too early to make a determination about the extent of the biological basis of racial differences. Yet, differences, even in genetic markers follow racial differences closely enough that ethnic identity markers can usefully group people into racial categories. This becomes important not only for disease markers, but also for targeting of pharmaceutical treatments.

(Nevertheless, under the law, we're all equal.)

[Heartlander]

You are correct. To look at mankind’s intellect and compare it while missing how mans’ intellect came into being…
That’s like saying ‘monkeys beat man into space and this is proof of evolution’.

[Nebullis]

I should add that control of expression patterns is contained in the genome but is not read as "nontrivial" differences as it is very small.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"[quoting my use of the expression "folk theory of face"] Would you please explain". Sure. A folk theory of race is one any of the widely held views that makes claims of the form "X is F becuase X belongs to race Y." Or, to avoid tangents about causation and statistical relationships, "It's no accident that X is F and X belongs to race Y". I'd give examples, but you seem squeamish, so I'll leave it to your imagination. The target of the article is the folk theory of race. I'm not accusing you of holding that theory. I'm pointing out that no one who holds it can take any comfort in the observations you're making.

[cornelis]

it is far too early

This crossed my mind. It's always the case, isn't it? It certainly was far too early for the 19th and 20th centuries.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

What is it that you think is Shaq's skin pigmentation explains?

[Question_Assumptions]

What a seriously rank load of hogwash. I'm no genetic scientist but I can look at Africa and see just what happens when the Europeans who built cities on that continent leave those cities behind to the natives.

Dig into history a little. Do you have any idea what the Germanic barbarians did to Rome when they finally got a hold of it? It took quite some time for what you think of as "European" culture took root across all of Europe.

Hmmm, some peoples build cities, some peoples tear them down. No, no difference between them at all.

That's a straw man. Of course there are differences. The question is whether they are cultural or genetic. The Europeans have done a great deal of both building and tearing down. You can witness the process at work in the Balkans.

Then I look here at formerly great cities like Detroit, populated with people who have been American citizens for generations. Hmmm. What do these examples have in common?

Do you think Europeans had cities forever? They didn't even invent the concept. There were cities in China, India, and the Near East over a thousand years before Europe had any. They learned how to build and maintain them.

[Sabertooth]

There's a pretty old hypothesis that explains the lack of genetic variation in humans: "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The more we learn the more we see evolutionist assumptions refuted by real science.

Actually, you missed a better parallel... That of the Flood.

I posted a thread on the "We Dodged Extinction" article HERE.

Which brings us sorta full circle, since the several chapters of Genesis after the Flood tell how the different races and ethnicities sprang from the sons of Noah.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"There's a pretty old hypothesis that explains the lack of genetic variation in humans: "And God created man in His own image" Let's put the same hypothesis to work to explain the surprising lack of genetic vatriation between humans and apes.

[MonroeDNA]

Pap.

Traditional classification of species would not say that there are diferenet species of mankind; ala races.

Yet all IQ tests over the last 100 years indicate that average IQ DOES show statistically diferences between groups according to self identified race.

The low to high average is 17%. This means that on the average, certain self identified races score 17% higher on intellegence tests than other self identified races.

Traditional classification of species seeks to find identifiers that distinguish between species. Here it is.

The IQ differential is more than 100 years old, and continues to today. SAT scores, ACT scores, are reliable IQ indicators to get you into Mensa. Yet the racial gap remains. Read "the bell curve."

Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

[wcbtinman]

"That race cannot be biologically defined is objective fact."

This statement is an objective lie. That there are biological differences between the races is easy to determine by simply observing your neighbors.

More junk science, from wishfully thinking "scientists".

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I always wanted to meet someone who really thinks there was a flood and an Ark and two of every insect, etc. How do you explain the greater variation in Apes? Maybe Noah messed up and brough a whole mess of Apes on the ark?

[William Terrell]

I would put forth that most "racial" variations of behavior are more due to cultural influences than genetic.

Then which came first, the chicken (race) or the egg (culture)?

[Ronin]

Don't be silly. There are no races so there cannot be any black men. We are all exactly the same.

< / sarcasm>

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Let's test. Do all blue eyed people constitute a single race? How about all people to whom fennel tasts bitter? In either case, why or why not?

[Interesting Times]

Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

Nope. Jews of Eastern European origin.

[LWalk18]

Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

If this is so, why don't we live in a world dominated by Eastern Civilization. Why did Europe conquer Asia, Africa and the New World, rather than Asia conquering Europe, Africa, and the New World. Why isn't India and China more advanced than Europe and the United States?

[wardaddy]

Not to mention differences between the tolerance of cold and heat. I have lived and worked the world over in many varied racial cultures/environments. For me to deny that there are at least superficial differences obvious even to my untrained eye would be self denial of my own observations.