On the nonexistence of human race
Engl101
Summary 1: “On the Non-Existence of Human Races” Frank B. Livingstone and Thedosius Dobzhansky discuss and argue their thoughts in their article, “On the Non-Existence of Human Races”. Race, in anthropology, can be defined as “referring to a group of local or breeding populations within a species” (Livingstone 279). Livingstone argues that the term race is hackneyed as an explanation of genetic variability among human populations. He emphasizes that this explanation is wrong in that it does not accord with our knowledge of population structure and ignores the most fundamental cause of biological variation, natural selection. Livingstone goes on to discuss that there are much more accurate methods of describing genetic variability than the concept of race. He argues that clines, geographic gradients, are proficient in explaining all racial or gene frequency differences as it encompasses all the general factors, which contribute to gene frequency change. On the other hand, Dobzhansky argues that race, through natural selection and environmental conditions, is a product of genetic variability. He highlights that “Races are genetically open systems while species are closed ones.” (Dobzhansky 279). Therefore, not only are races rarely ever distinct but rather prone to change. He counteracts Livingstone’s argument by emphasizing that even if all clines were uniform and the genes were independent and uncorrelated, race differences would still exist. Dobzhansky believes race is indeed a valid category of biological classification. In Livingstone’s reply he agrees with Dobzhansky that all humans differ in the frequency of some gene and thus are racially distinct. He argues, however, that the term race is completely unsuitable. Livingstone then points out that Dobzhansky’s argument on clines is false in that he does not take in to account that there are many factors that go into the shape of cline, not just gene flow. Livingstone stresses that their
Summary 1: “On the Non-Existence of Human Races” Frank B. Livingstone and Thedosius Dobzhansky discuss and argue their thoughts in their article, “On the Non-Existence of Human Races”. Race, in anthropology, can be defined as “referring to a group of local or breeding populations within a species” (Livingstone 279). Livingstone argues that the term race is hackneyed as an explanation of genetic variability among human populations. He emphasizes that this explanation is wrong in that it does not accord with our knowledge of population structure and ignores the most fundamental cause of biological variation, natural selection. Livingstone goes on to discuss that there are much more accurate methods of describing genetic variability than the concept of race. He argues that clines, geographic gradients, are proficient in explaining all racial or gene frequency differences as it encompasses all the general factors, which contribute to gene frequency change. On the other hand, Dobzhansky argues that race, through natural selection and environmental conditions, is a product of genetic variability. He highlights that “Races are genetically open systems while species are closed ones.” (Dobzhansky 279). Therefore, not only are races rarely ever distinct but rather prone to change. He counteracts Livingstone’s argument by emphasizing that even if all clines were uniform and the genes were independent and uncorrelated, race differences would still exist. Dobzhansky believes race is indeed a valid category of biological classification. In Livingstone’s reply he agrees with Dobzhansky that all humans differ in the frequency of some gene and thus are racially distinct. He argues, however, that the term race is completely unsuitable. Livingstone then points out that Dobzhansky’s argument on clines is false in that he does not take in to account that there are many factors that go into the shape of cline, not just gene flow. Livingstone stresses that their