4 ms·

The technical term that we use for genetic subgroups beneath the species level is "subspecies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.o

The technical term that we use for genetic subgroups beneath the species level is "subspecies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

paxys 1y ago
There are no human subspecies.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Among the identified human subgroups, some would probably be subspecies of the same species as modern humans (Denisovans, neanderthals, and a few others) if there hadn't been a tendency to assign extinct human groups (or even individual specimens) as distinct species on scant evidence.
malcolmgreaves 1y ago
Incorrect: somewhere Ali g the way in your life, someone deeply lied to you. Race isn’t a subspecies. It’s an artificial social construct created by European elites in the beginning of the last millennium. Its purpose is to sow division. And to other groups of people to make it more palatable to commit crimes against the objectified folk.
- alphazard 1y ago
  The original comment was talking about using a different term than race when doing real biology or medical science. You basically made their point by jumping in with an explanation of race.
- meindnoch 1y ago
  Ok, but there are clear morphological, genetical, etc. differences between e.g. a Han Chinese person and a Yoruba person. So putting aside politics, sociology and whatnot, purely on a scientific basis, what term do you use for these differences? When you say that "these people belong to different $INSERT_TERM_HERE", what's the correct term to substitute?
  - foldr 1y ago
    There are also morphological and genetic differences between, say, an average 'white' Swedish person and an average 'white' Spanish person. But our systems of racial classification tend to put them in the same group just because they both happen to have light skin. Naturally, if you take two groups of people who've long inhabited different parts of the world (with little to no historical interaction between the groups), then you'll find genetic differences. The point is that there is no biological motivation for the specific set of racial categories that the US and other societies have developed. An objective Martian biologist studying humans would not group us into 'white humans', 'black humans', ... etc.
    - meindnoch 1y ago
      >there is no biological motivation for the specific set of racial categories that the US and other societies have developed. An objective Martian biologist studying humans would not group us into 'white humans', 'black humans', ... etc. Then why do biologists distinguish subspecies of other animals? E.g. look at the subspecies of Panthera tigris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies
      - foldr 1y ago
        Some animals have subspecies. Humans don't. This is something that's widely misunderstood popularly but which is indubitable biologically. For example, many people are not aware that there is vastly more genetic variation between different breeds of dog than there is between any two groups of humans. But regardless, the more important point is that whatever biologically-motivated categories humans might be grouped by would not correspond to 'races' as normally understood.
        nomel 1y ago
        There are some (small) genetic populations whose genetics diverged so much, from geographic separation, that they have fertility problems [1]. What's left? Seems like something left over from the old science perspective that "humans are not animals", more than anything. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8600657/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8600657/
- nomel 1y ago
  What most people (non-academics) mean when they say "race" is "genetic population". If your goal is to have a conceptual exchange, rather than correcting terminology, you should go in with that perspective. Top level comment put "race" in quotes, understanding this.
  - foldr 1y ago
    Mendel didn't get much attention until 1900 or so. European racism was alive and well long before non-academics had any notion of a "genetic population", or indeed a genetic anything.
    - nomel 1y ago
      Which is completely unrelated to speaking with a someone outside of academia, today.
- rwyinuse 1y ago
  Yeah, it's quite wild what European elites and scientists believed around late 1800's / early 1900's, and it wasn't limited just to anti-semitism or racism towards Africans, even if those groups had it much worse than most others. For instance, in late 1800's Swedish scientists stole bunch of skulls from Finnish cemeteries, trying to prove that Finnish people are of different/lesser race than their Scandinavian neighbours. It took until 2024 for those skulls to be returned to Finland for reburial. https://yle.fi/a/74-20110151 https://yle.fi/a/74-20110151 https://ki.se/en/about-ki/history-and-cultural-heritage/medical-history-and-heritage/the-history-of-karolinska-institutet/on-finnish-remains-in-karolinska-institutets-anatomical-collection https://ki.se/en/about-ki/history-and-cultural-heritage/medi...
meindnoch 1y ago
On the other hand: "In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
- alphazard 1y ago
  That doesn't seem like a useful definition. There is no case where subspecies could not also satisfy that definition. It's a distinction without a difference.
  - meindnoch 1y ago
    Yeah. I think it's a synonym. I'd consider it a linguistic quirk, like how we use the term "carcass" for the body of a dead animal, but we use "corpse" for humans.
  - nomel 1y ago
    Much of it, at that level, is a mostly arbitrary construct, with blurry boundaries, left to subjective interpretation, made up long before the very new concept of genetic analysis was even a thing, where a more informed hierarchy could be made. Even then, the end bits of the hierarchy turn into a knotted mess a generation or two after you remove a river or mountain. Categorization is a fundamental part of our intelligence, but not necessarily a reflection of reality.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

The technical term that we use for genetic subgroups beneath the species level is "subspecies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

paxys 1y ago

There are no human subspecies.

dragonwriter 1y ago
Among the identified human subgroups, some would probably be subspecies of the same species as modern humans (Denisovans, neanderthals, and a few others) if there hadn't been a tendency to assign extinct human groups (or even individual specimens) as distinct species on scant evidence.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago

Incorrect: somewhere Ali g the way in your life, someone deeply lied to you. Race isn’t a subspecies. It’s an artificial social construct created by European elites in the beginning of the last millennium. Its purpose is to sow division. And to other groups of people to make it more palatable to commit crimes against the objectified folk.

alphazard 1y ago
The original comment was talking about using a different term than race when doing real biology or medical science. You basically made their point by jumping in with an explanation of race.
meindnoch 1y ago
Ok, but there are clear morphological, genetical, etc. differences between e.g. a Han Chinese person and a Yoruba person. So putting aside politics, sociology and whatnot, purely on a scientific basis, what term do you use for these differences? When you say that "these people belong to different $INSERT_TERM_HERE", what's the correct term to substitute?
- foldr 1y ago
  There are also morphological and genetic differences between, say, an average 'white' Swedish person and an average 'white' Spanish person. But our systems of racial classification tend to put them in the same group just because they both happen to have light skin. Naturally, if you take two groups of people who've long inhabited different parts of the world (with little to no historical interaction between the groups), then you'll find genetic differences. The point is that there is no biological motivation for the specific set of racial categories that the US and other societies have developed. An objective Martian biologist studying humans would not group us into 'white humans', 'black humans', ... etc.
  - meindnoch 1y ago
    >there is no biological motivation for the specific set of racial categories that the US and other societies have developed. An objective Martian biologist studying humans would not group us into 'white humans', 'black humans', ... etc. Then why do biologists distinguish subspecies of other animals? E.g. look at the subspecies of Panthera tigris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Subspecies
    - foldr 1y ago
      Some animals have subspecies. Humans don't. This is something that's widely misunderstood popularly but which is indubitable biologically. For example, many people are not aware that there is vastly more genetic variation between different breeds of dog than there is between any two groups of humans. But regardless, the more important point is that whatever biologically-motivated categories humans might be grouped by would not correspond to 'races' as normally understood.
      - nomel 1y ago
        There are some (small) genetic populations whose genetics diverged so much, from geographic separation, that they have fertility problems [1]. What's left? Seems like something left over from the old science perspective that "humans are not animals", more than anything. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8600657/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8600657/
nomel 1y ago
What most people (non-academics) mean when they say "race" is "genetic population". If your goal is to have a conceptual exchange, rather than correcting terminology, you should go in with that perspective. Top level comment put "race" in quotes, understanding this.
- foldr 1y ago
  Mendel didn't get much attention until 1900 or so. European racism was alive and well long before non-academics had any notion of a "genetic population", or indeed a genetic anything.
  - nomel 1y ago
    Which is completely unrelated to speaking with a someone outside of academia, today.
rwyinuse 1y ago
Yeah, it's quite wild what European elites and scientists believed around late 1800's / early 1900's, and it wasn't limited just to anti-semitism or racism towards Africans, even if those groups had it much worse than most others. For instance, in late 1800's Swedish scientists stole bunch of skulls from Finnish cemeteries, trying to prove that Finnish people are of different/lesser race than their Scandinavian neighbours. It took until 2024 for those skulls to be returned to Finland for reburial. https://yle.fi/a/74-20110151 https://yle.fi/a/74-20110151 https://ki.se/en/about-ki/history-and-cultural-heritage/medical-history-and-heritage/the-history-of-karolinska-institutet/on-finnish-remains-in-karolinska-institutets-anatomical-collection https://ki.se/en/about-ki/history-and-cultural-heritage/medi...

meindnoch 1y ago

On the other hand: "In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

alphazard 1y ago
That doesn't seem like a useful definition. There is no case where subspecies could not also satisfy that definition. It's a distinction without a difference.
- meindnoch 1y ago
  Yeah. I think it's a synonym. I'd consider it a linguistic quirk, like how we use the term "carcass" for the body of a dead animal, but we use "corpse" for humans.
- nomel 1y ago
  Much of it, at that level, is a mostly arbitrary construct, with blurry boundaries, left to subjective interpretation, made up long before the very new concept of genetic analysis was even a thing, where a more informed hierarchy could be made. Even then, the end bits of the hierarchy turn into a knotted mess a generation or two after you remove a river or mountain. Categorization is a fundamental part of our intelligence, but not necessarily a reflection of reality.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]