Misplaced Pages

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:38, 29 October 2013 editKobayashi245 (talk | contribs)231 edits Undid revision 579360262 by Binksternet (talk) What? What is your justification for that meaningless revert?← Previous edit Revision as of 22:50, 29 October 2013 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,987 edits Delete worthless infobox. Revert to pre-Kobayashi245 version... too much questionable changeNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox multi-locus allele clusters}}
'''"Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy"''' is a 2003 paper by ].<ref name="Edwards2003">{{cite pmid| 12879450}}</ref> He criticises an argument first made by ] in his 1972 article "The Apportionment of Human Diversity",<ref>{{cite doi|10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14}}</ref><ref>Made in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972)</ref> which argued that division of humanity into ] is ] invalid.<ref name="Edwards2003"/> Edwards' critique is discussed in a number of academic and ] books, not all of which endorse his conclusion.<ref name="Dawkins">{{cite book |title=The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink= |coauthors=Wong, Yan |year=2005 |publisher=] |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=406–407 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rR9XPnaqvCMC&pg=PA406&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false |accessdate=July 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Carlos D. Bustamante, "Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure", chapter 20 in M.R. Speicher et al. (eds.), ''Vogel and Motulsky’s Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches'', 4th ed., Springer, 2010, ISBN 3-540-37653-4, p. 596</ref> '''"Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy"''' is a 2003 paper by ].<ref name="Edwards2003">{{cite pmid| 12879450}}</ref> He criticises an argument first made by ] in his 1972 article "The Apportionment of Human Diversity",<ref>{{cite doi|10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14}}</ref><ref>Made in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972)</ref> which argued that division of humanity into ] is ] invalid.<ref name="Edwards2003"/> Edwards' critique is discussed in a number of academic and ] books, not all of which endorse his conclusion.<ref name="Dawkins">{{cite book |title=The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink= |coauthors=Wong, Yan |year=2005 |publisher=] |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=406–407 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rR9XPnaqvCMC&pg=PA406&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false |accessdate=July 13, 2011}}</ref><ref>Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Carlos D. Bustamante, "Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure", chapter 20 in M.R. Speicher et al. (eds.), ''Vogel and Motulsky’s Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches'', 4th ed., Springer, 2010, ISBN 3-540-37653-4, p. 596</ref>


Line 5: Line 4:
In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", ] performed a ] (''F''<sub>ST</sub>) statistical analysis using 17 markers including blood group proteins. His results were that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race, and only 6.3% was found to differentiate the various races which in the study were Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines. (Later studies have generally agreed although sometimes with somewhat different values such as 75% for variation within a population.)<ref name=Risch2002>{{cite pmid|12184798}}</ref> Lewontin argued "Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance." In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", ] performed a ] (''F''<sub>ST</sub>) statistical analysis using 17 markers including blood group proteins. His results were that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race, and only 6.3% was found to differentiate the various races which in the study were Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines. (Later studies have generally agreed although sometimes with somewhat different values such as 75% for variation within a population.)<ref name=Risch2002>{{cite pmid|12184798}}</ref> Lewontin argued "Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance."


This argument has been cited by some as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.<ref>{{cite book |title=Human Evolutionary Biology |last=Muehlenbein |first=Michael P. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2010 |publisher=] |location= |isbn= |page=270 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3NRf_8gwmO8C&pg=PA270&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false |accessdate=July 13, 2011}}</ref> One example being the "Statement on 'Race'" published by the ] in 1998 which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.<ref name = "AAA">American Anthropological Association (May 17, 1998). .</ref> Others, such as ], have disagreed with Lewontin's assertion that racial categories are biologically meaningless.<ref name="Dawkins"/> This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.<ref>{{cite book |title=Human Evolutionary Biology |last=Muehlenbein |first=Michael P. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2010 |publisher=] |location= |isbn= |page=270 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3NRf_8gwmO8C&pg=PA270&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false |accessdate=July 13, 2011}}</ref> One example being the "Statement on 'Race'" published by the ] in 1998 which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.<ref name = "AAA">American Anthropological Association (May 17, 1998). .</ref>


==Edwards' critique== ==Edwards' critique==
Line 16: Line 15:
Edwards's paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and ] had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin's, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.<ref name="McCabe"/> Edwards's paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and ] had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin's, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.<ref name="McCabe"/>


] ] agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Dawkins also wrote of Lewontin that he is "known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible oppurtunity."<ref name="Dawkins"/> ] has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in '']'' in the late 1970s.<ref>{{Cite doi|10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite doi|10.1086/283155}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1086/283359}}</ref> ] ] agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."<ref name="Dawkins"/> ] has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in '']'' in the late 1970s.<ref>{{Cite doi|10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite doi|10.1086/283155}}</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1086/283359}}</ref>


Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and ], because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. From this sociological perspective Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.<ref>Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2011) ‘Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester</ref><ref>Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2011) ¿La cosificación genética de la 'raza'? Un análisis crítico in C López-Beltrán (ed.) ''Genes (&) Mestizos. Genómica y raza en la biomedicina mexicana''. Ficticia editorial</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0}}</ref> Biological anthropologists such as ] and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.<ref>Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2011) ‘Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester</ref><ref>Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2011) ¿La cosificación genética de la 'raza'? Un análisis crítico in C López-Beltrán (ed.) ''Genes (&) Mestizos. Genómica y raza en la biomedicina mexicana''. Ficticia editorial</ref><ref>{{cite doi|10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0}}</ref>


Similarly, biological anthropologist ] agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."<ref>Marks, J. (2010) Ten facts about human variation. In: Human Evolutionary Biology, edited by M. Muehlenbein. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp . 265-276.</ref> Similarly, Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."<ref>Marks, J. (2010) Ten facts about human variation. In: Human Evolutionary Biology, edited by M. Muehlenbein. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp . 265-276.</ref>


The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.<ref>Weiss KM and Fullerton SM (2005) Racing around, getting nowhere. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 165–169</ref><ref>Graves, Joseph. 2001. The Emperor's New Clothes. Rutgers University Press<</ref><ref>Loring Brace, C. 2005. Race is a four letter word. Oxford University Press.</ref><ref>http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm</ref> The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.<ref>Weiss KM and Fullerton SM (2005) Racing around, getting nowhere. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 165–169</ref><ref>Graves, Joseph. 2001. The Emperor's New Clothes. Rutgers University Press<</ref><ref>Loring Brace, C. 2005. Race is a four letter word. Oxford University Press.</ref><ref>http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm</ref>

Revision as of 22:50, 29 October 2013

"Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" is a 2003 paper by A. W. F. Edwards. He criticises an argument first made by Richard Lewontin in his 1972 article "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", which argued that division of humanity into races is taxonomically invalid. Edwards' critique is discussed in a number of academic and popular science books, not all of which endorse his conclusion.

Lewontin's argument

In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers including blood group proteins. His results were that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race, and only 6.3% was found to differentiate the various races which in the study were Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines. (Later studies have generally agreed although sometimes with somewhat different values such as 75% for variation within a population.) Lewontin argued "Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance."

This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings. One example being the "Statement on 'Race'" published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998 which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.

Edwards' critique

See also: Race and genetics

Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.

In Edwards's words, "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.

Edwards's paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin's, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agreed with Edwards' view and summarized it as "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." Neven Sesardic has argued that, unbeknownst to Edwards, Jeffry B. Mitton already made the same argument about Lewontin's claim in two articles published in The American Naturalist in the late 1970s.

Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct.

Similarly, Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."

The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.

In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."

See also

References

  1. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12879450, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid= 12879450 instead.
  2. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14 instead.
  3. Made in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972)
  4. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2005). The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 406–407. Retrieved July 13, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Carlos D. Bustamante, "Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure", chapter 20 in M.R. Speicher et al. (eds.), Vogel and Motulsky’s Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches, 4th ed., Springer, 2010, ISBN 3-540-37653-4, p. 596
  6. Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 12184798, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=12184798 instead.
  7. Muehlenbein, Michael P. (2010). Human Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University Press. p. 270. Retrieved July 13, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. American Anthropological Association (May 17, 1998). Statement on 'race'.
  9. Solomos, John (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies. SAGE Publications. pp. 114–115. Retrieved July 13, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ McCabe, Linda L. (2008). DNA: promise and peril. University of California Press. pp. 76–77. Retrieved July 13, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7 instead.
  12. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1086/283155, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1086/283155 instead.
  13. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1086/283359, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1086/283359 instead.
  14. Kaplan, Jonathan Michael (January 2011) ‘Race’: What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester
  15. Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2011) ¿La cosificación genética de la 'raza'? Un análisis crítico in C López-Beltrán (ed.) Genes (&) Mestizos. Genómica y raza en la biomedicina mexicana. Ficticia editorial
  16. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s13752-012-0048-0 instead.
  17. Marks, J. (2010) Ten facts about human variation. In: Human Evolutionary Biology, edited by M. Muehlenbein. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp . 265-276.
  18. Weiss KM and Fullerton SM (2005) Racing around, getting nowhere. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 165–169
  19. Graves, Joseph. 2001. The Emperor's New Clothes. Rutgers University Press<
  20. Loring Brace, C. 2005. Race is a four letter word. Oxford University Press.
  21. http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm
  22. http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
  23. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 17339205, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=17339205 instead.
Categories: