Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268956116

From: "Raymond Whritenour" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT How many races are there?
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:48:36 -0400
References: <><BLU126-DS1116FCD0C524B9A8699569922C0@phx.gbl><><><BLU126-DS78BB86EB03D28062DDCC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS12A9F670ADE3CF93C9CEC5922B0@phx.gbl><>
In-Reply-To: <><BLU126-DS1116FCD0C524B9A8699569922C0@phx.gbl><><><BLU126-DS78BB86EB03D28062DDCC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS12A9F670ADE3CF93C9CEC5922B0@phx.gbl><>

Okay. And, the point I'm trying to make is that the few major divisions of mankind, called "races," which were recognized long before the modern genetic discoveries, just happen to correspond, almost exactly (geographically and phenotypically speaking), with the divisions we see at K=3, K=4, and/or K=5. The K=2 divisions do not equate with what we called races, and K=6, K=7, K=8, etc., etc., show more and more divisions which were never previously identified as separate races. If the definition of race is an arbitrary social construct it would not have shown up at K=4! The boundaries of K=4 (or K=3 or K=5) would have been completely different, absent the most extraordinary coincidence.

Ray Whritenour
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Vizachero<mailto:>
To: <mailto:>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT How many races are there?

Well, they call nine of the asteroids "planets". Or eight, now.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is not that the social construct
of race has no value. The point is that there is nothing in biology
that would tell you how many "races" there might be. Every observer
is making their own decision about that.


On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Raymond Whritenour wrote:

> But, they don't call any of the thousands of asteroids circling
> about the Sun a planet!

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: