|
|
Re: Definition of Race
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@csc.albany.edu)
11 Feb 1995 01:44:31 GMT
In article <3hefqaINNmhd@hpsdlmf7.sdd.hp.com>,
Gerold Firl <geroldf@sdd.hp.com> wrote:
[snip]
>That depends on how the variation is distributed. If human variation is
>randomly distributed, as you say, with genetic clusters on different
>parameters failing to cluster with each other, then yes: the way a "race"
>would be defined would depend on which genetic variable was being
>considered. But if the variations do cluster together, forming distinct
>peaks in the spectrum of total human variability, (as clearly *does* occur
>with many physical characteristics, visible to the eye), then the folk
>concept of race is, as human subspecies, is valid. It all depends on the
>data. This question will be answered by lab tests, not by wishful
>thinking.
Gerold,
Almost all of the characteristics that folk racial taxonomies use are
not distributed in discrete clusters. They are distributed as genetic
clines. In other words, skin color shows a continuity of distribution.
Divisions of that continuum are arbitrary.
They certainly do not correspond to subspecies.
--
Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
University of Ediacara pn8886@cnsunix.albany.edu
"Semper Alouatta"
|