Talk:Race (human categorization)

File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The everyday experience of racial perception

Wouldn't it be sensible to include something on the experience that the phenomenon, classification, folksonomy – whatever you'd like to call it – known as "race" is based on – where does it come from? I mean, it's a simple everyday experience: People who are in contact with people originating from all over the planet make the observation that people whose ancestry is from different regions of the world look perceptibly different depending on the regions their ancestors are from, and in a way that is actually (often – not necessarily always) easy and quick to perceive, even from afar – easier even than identifying the individual. Just like people can (often) tell from your accent or dialect where you have grown up, they can (often) tell your ancestry from your looks (not only or even primarily your skin colour, but also other features such as body shape, build/stature, facial traits, hair structure, hair and eye colour – most of these features are not connected). Both skills are considered somewhat useful, or at least interesting enough that many people bother at all. (Both skills also share in common that increasing mobility complicate and muddle the issue, but the differences don't completely disappear.) That's the whole "secret" behind race, and it's so obvious that I shouldn't even need to explain it. Does anyone deny that this experience exists? I doubt it. There is a strong predictive value to certain readily visible (as well as audible) features of human beings regarding their geographic origin, or that of their ancestors; I think that's uncontroversial and we aren't kidding ourselves here.

So, when biologists deny that there is such a thing as a "human race", the layman thinks his everyday experience is denied. How can that be? And that's where the incredulity comes from – "PC gone mad! Yeah right, there are no races, everyone looks the same and I can't tell if somebody is an African, European or Asian American, or mixed! Are you kidding me?!" That's certainly not a helpful approach. It doesn't make sense to say "races are ONLY a social construct of no objective consequence" – it's tantamount to calling the "race perception" an optical illusion, a figment of one's imagination that has arisen randomly. That's patent nonsense if its validity can be empirically tested. It makes sense to validate the lay experience explicitly. We perceive races, and this perception matters one way or the other.

The assertion that "races don't really exist" in an absolute sense is nonsensical; they exist in our minds, in the eye of the beholder, and in our self-perception. Many other things – categories – "don't really exist" in the same sense and scientists still work with them: that's how science works. Science makes categories up, categories that are to a sense arbitrary. "Race" is an abstraction, just like many other classifications, which doesn't make it invalid per se.

Science somehow needs to account for the phenomenon in question – I don't care if you talk about populations or phenotypes: something is clearly at work here, and it's the job of the scientist interested in human ethnic diversity, or the perception thereof, what exactly is happening when people perceive races and what they are observing, what criteria they use, and on which substrate of reality their perception is based.

I can't remember where exactly, but recently I read that people perceive another person's race within fractions of a second, just like the sex – before they notice anything else. (That's why you usually get victims or witnesses who will tell you no more than the sex and the race of a person they are reporting, of course.) There seems to be a lot of research in that field. That would be a useful addition to the article.

(I just found something here.)

Also, ignoring (or trying to ignore) people's race in certain cases simply doesn't work, or doesn't solve problems. It turns into an elephant in the room. "Colour-blindness" can also impoverish instead of enrich, by trampling over differences and diversity that human beings cherish. Whether you think they should or you don't. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What you're talking about is called "ethnicity". The problem with pushing forward with human ignorance (like you suggest) is that people then use it to categorize people with other traits. The reason is was OK to have black slaves was justified by many because they were of a "lower race" or "different race" to white people. In actuality we're all of the same race, although we may be of different ethnicity. Also, can I just add a response to your quote: "Many other things – categories – 'don't really exist' in the same sense and scientists still work with them: that's how science works." This is the OPPOSITE of how science works. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Today's NY Times (12/7/12) page A3 has an article about the racial composition of the "earliest Americans" who arrived 15,000 years ago via the Bearing Sea land bridge. Genomic data and race are used interfchangably, "interracial marriages--or admixtures" are noted. He also calls one group "Eskimos," another term frowned on by sociologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about the topic

Is this about the racial system of classification, the term "racism", or about races of people?

Perhaps the problem is that there is controversy about whether races exist? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All of that is actually answered in the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Racism cannot exist if races cant exist. neither can it exist to be anti-american,anti-brittish-anti-semetic,anti-arab,anti-african,anti-white nord european,anti-asian,anti-japanese,anti-korean. these things dont exists acording to those who believe in emotional fabrication such as "social construction" which ironicly enough is a emotional fabrication itself. hence the colour of hair and eyelids of asians go unoticed in the same way curly hair is mostly prodominant in african ethnic groups. or blondness in most northeuropean.77.53.83.229 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Race doesn't exist in humans, which makes racism nonsensical. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means there's no scientific basis for it to exist (outside of the whimsical imaginings of racists). Does that make it clearer? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Race exists. See the familiar plot of the first two principal components of human genetic variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.11 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any classification here. From the looks of it, biologists seem to think races exist. I only skimmed this. Maybe I missed something? Maybe I misunderstood the subject and what Obsidian Soul wrote. I'm aware that this is a politicaly hot topic. Can anyone fill me in. Why is there no examples of racial classification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the very idea that humans may be and are classified by race in many scientific disciplines is anathema on these pages, we did a while back at least agree to list one text book on racial classification: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, 1974. Clines are discussed on p. 78. "A most impressive display of profound scholarship and vast erudition in every main aspect of this important topic." Arthur Jensen, University of California, Berkeley. Baker was a professor of cytology and the author of six books on this and allied subjects. I notice that reference has been removed. Why?

In addition, here a bbibliography of peer-reviewed articles on racial differences in medicine.

1. Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. & Tang, H. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biol. 3, comment2007 (2002).

2. Burchard, E.G. et al. The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1170−1175 (2003).

3. Wood, A.J. Racial differences in the response to drugs—pointers to genetic differences. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1394−1396 (2001).

4. Exner, D.V., Dries, D.L., Domanski, M.J. & Cohn, J.N. Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in black as compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1351−1357 (2001).

5. Varner, R.V., Ruiz, P. & Small, D.R. Black and white patients response to antidepressant treatment for major depression. Psychiatr. Q. 69, 117−125 (1998). block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A professor of cytology writing in 1974 is not an authority on how scholars understand race 4 years later. Arthur Jensen much less so. The specialized primary sources you cite don't seem relevant either - especially since the issue of possible relevance of race to biomedicine is already covered based on secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. Here is much more recent data:

Two teams of geneticists at Stanford University compared the DNA of 938 people from 51 populations in order to better document human diversity and past migrations around the world. They focused on 650,000 DNA nucleotides to discover differences. This provided what they believe to be clear evidence of human origins in Sub-Saharan Africa and its subsequent dispersion into various parts of the world. They believe that it is also evidence of more recent migrations that resulted in genetic differences between populations today such as North and South Chinese. (Jakobosson, Mattias et.al., Nature February 21, 2007 and Jun, Z. Li et.al., Science February 22, 2007)

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm The Races of Humanity by Richard McCulloch  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.32.84 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 

And, of course, there's the U.S Government Census classification:

In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity. The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Instead of allowing a multiracial category as was originally suggested in public and congressional hearings, the OMB adopted the Interagency Committee's recommendation to allow respondents to select one or more races when they self-identify. With the OMB's approval, the Census 2000 questionnaires also include a sixth racial category: Some Other Race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.32.84 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Banned sock.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry but I don't see how this is relevant for the article. The article already describes that genetic variaiton exists and sometimes cluster in ways that are similar, but not identical to, American racial categories. It also describes the use of racial categories in censuses. Richard McCulloch is not a reliable source for anything - he is a neonazi apologist who has written a White Supremacy manifesto.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you say that a source published in 1974 is too dated to be used, I guess that means you will be removing older citations that support your views?

"Henceforth, the Brazilian narrative of a perfect "post-racist" country, must be met with caution, as sociologist Gilberto Freyre demonstrated in 1933 in Casa Grande e Senzala."

Montagu 1962

Montagu, Ashley (1941). "The Concept of Race in The Human Species in the Light of Genetics" (PDF). Journal of Heredity 32 (8): 243–248. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/8/243.full.pdf.

Morgan, Edmund S. (1975). American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W. W. Norton and Company, Inc..

"The Race Question", UNESCO, 1950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WOW! (I guess crossing out someone's careful contributions with which the Admin doesn't agree is what passes for "discussion" on these pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern debate

Regarding this edit by User:155.198.36.56.

Genomics or not, basing conclusions on a single "latest" study goes against WP:NPOV. You must take into account other studies. And for that, you need to retain the older information. Not simply go with whichever study happens to have the latest publication date.

You have basically excised vast swathes of text to make it seem as if the scientific consensus is united in a single conclusion (that humans have three races) when that is obviously not the case. The weight of the number of references you have obliterated with your edit is still heavier.

The section is entitled "Modern debate" for a reason. Again, add the new information, do not change text wholesale.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:155.198.36.56 continues to revert the article without discussion. Everything he's added so far is so blatantly WP:SYNTHESIS: the references all have different conclusions. None of them being that "these studies validate the division of humanity into three major races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid." I'm now asking for third opinion as apparently this page being semi-protected prevents him from discussing anything and the BRD cycle is useless.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the request recently placed at WP:3O. Please sit tight and I will give my opinion shortly, which you may do with as you will. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian. It should be noted that the content in question is copied and pasted from 'Metapedia.org' - all of it is word for word. If this user wanted to do anything but wax eugenics, they would get a wiki account. -Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've decided not to bother to give a full third opinion on this. It's completely obvious that such widescale changes to an article on a topic such as this one (I'm guessing it probably falls under the Race and Intelligence sanctions, but even if not) requires proper talkpage discussion for each significant change that the IP wishes to make. I would note that the IP is unable to do that because the talkpage is semi-protected but the article is not, which seems a bit daft. All the same, the mention of metapedia, I think, seals the deal that admin intervention should be sought if this carries on the way it has done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

True it should, you bias against the website shows that without it, it would be used for political control of your own political opinions.77.53.83.229 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Metapedia... I should've known. Anyway, IP appears to be blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor under sanctions. Thanks to the users who responded.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected, talk page unprotected

The edit warring was getting out of hand, but the IP should be allowed to state their case here. Favonian (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

pp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Racism lead to tragedies?

The opening stanza states that racism has lead to tradgedies like slavery and genocide. This is not wholly correct. Is the author using modern norms and values and applying them to a thousand years ago? Did the arabs enslave other arabs due to racism? Unfortunately the word 'slavery' still evokes images of Africans being shipped across the sea, to most European people- i.e most reading this wiki page.

Also not all genocides happened with racial intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Flynn quote

I removed the following quote...

James R. Flynn, an intelligence researcher known for his criticisms of racial theories of intelligence, wrote "Gould's book evades all of [Arthur] Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black-white IQ gap by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g no more need be said. This is manifestly false. Jensen's arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or 10 or 100 factors; where it has been found that blacks suffer from a 15 IQ score lower than that of whites.

Because...

1. It is incorrect.
2. Once corrected; It makes no sense where used.

The actual quote...

I would add that Gould's book evades all of Jensen's best arguments, for a genetic component in the black-white IQ gap, by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g, no more need be said. This is manifestly false, Jensen's arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or 10 or 100 factors. I attribute no intent or motive to Gould, it is just that you cannot rebut arguments if you do not acknowledge and address them."

—Flynn J. R. (1999). "Evidence against Rushton: The Genetic Loading of the Wisc-R Subtests and the Causes of Between-Group IQ Differences". Personality and Individual Differences. 26: 373–93.

Twisting sources to make a point does not serve the purpose of this project —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the "where it has been found that blacks suffer from a 15 IQ score lower than that of whites" isn't in the original. But the original makes the same point without it. Just take out that part, or put it outside the quote, or put it in square bracket. It is not twisting anything, just describing the deficit. 221.179.41.22 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:RaceMugshots.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RaceMugshots.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RaceMugshots.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Cluster Analysis

Studies reporting continental clusterings of genetic diversity are only relevant in so far that they claim explicitly that this has relevance for the concept of Race. Nobody denies that genetic differences cluster between populations. The argument that is relevant for this article is whether this clustering vindicates the race concept or not. Simply including studies of genetic clustering and expecting the reader to draw their own conclusions is WP:SYNTH, and is not allowed. I suggest you add the material to Human genetic diversity in stead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanqueamiento

Some strange edits have happened lately, each by a different throw-away account:

• Blanqueamiento • diff
• Multiracial • diff and diff
• Passing (racial identity) • diff
• Race (human classification) • diff
• Race and ethnicity in Latin America • diff and diff

Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI time. Delete it as original research, sources need to actually mention Blanqueamiento, and links to the sales or publishers site of a book aren't exactly a source anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting to weed it out, also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maritzaperez10. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I must try to figure out that SPI interface one day. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

People of color

At the end of lede is the following sentence: "A large body of scholarship has traced the relationships between the historical, social production of race in legal and criminal language and their effects on the policing and disproportionate incarceration of people of color." What does 'people of color' exactly mean in a global context?
I know it is a term used in the USA to mean everyone who is not 'white', but this term can't be used elsewhere. The sentence assumes that the race concept has effects on policing and disproportionate incarceration only of 'people of color', and that universally only 'people of color' are incarcerated disproportionately. The usage of the term is problematic as there is no universal definition of 'people of color', 'white' and even if there was, the above statement would be untrue. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:White people#Discussion on direction of article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:White people#Discussion on direction of article. See also: Talk: Black people#Direction FonsScientiae (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

POV in the lead

The article tries to claim race is of no taxonomic significance. This is based on the debunked (by finding the same ratio between humans and chimpanzees) 1970s Lewontin's fallacy being parroted by the AAA in 1996 and Keita's 2004 article which claimed there were "no discontinuities" in human variation based on a debunked study by Paabo. There are several apex sources (Dawkins, Edwards) who explicitly state that race is of taxonomic significance.

Why is their view being censored? Why are you using sources from 1996 when the latest genetic studies have disproved them?

This is the AAA: http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm

They are clearly nothing more than a political propaganda group, and this sorry article is an extension.

Here is another example of flawed logic to reach the preconceived conclusion: http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/race_humvar.html

The new excuse is that more genetic diversity in Africa invalidates a race concept and that non-Africans are a subset of Africans. I guess they looked at Hunley, Healy and Long. I think an important caveat is that they looked at neutral variation. They used only 783 neutral loci, and did not conduct a principle component analysis. As far as I am concerned that is just noise. In plenty of animals a new species will show a nested pattern in the neutral genetic diversity, that doesn't invalidate the distinction. HUGO in "Mapping Genetic Diversity in Asia" used PCA on 600,000 polymorphisms. Coop et al mapped 50 alleles believed to be under selection and found they fractured along racial lines. The race concept is about those genes. I find it absurd to claim that "a nested pattern would be incompatible with independently evolving races". In fact that is exactly what you would expect to see when one population goes through a bottleneck and then starts to evolve separately. And as we know non-African populations are not a perfect subset of Africans. Maybe it would seem like that if you looked at a relatively small amount of neutral variation. How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if non-Africans show Neanderthal admixture? How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if only Europeans carry CCR5-Δ32? Obviously, they are not. And even if they were a race concept would still be valid if there was a distinctive pattern of variation. As Dawkins said:

"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

This article is nothing more than dishonest propaganda and the "AAA" ought to be ashamed of itself for twisting science for political reasons. SusanKravitz (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. The claim is not based on Lewontin's paper, but on the fact that the the way that the concept race is used does not correspond to any biological or genetic construction. Racial groups is used to classify phenotypical variation - it is entirely possible to be classified as "black" and have the same genetic markers of neanderthal admixture as someone classified as white. Because racial classification is done by cultural and visual inspection and not through gene tests. Gene tests classify ancestry and everybody is likely to have ancestry from several continents. Using a genetic classification of race would render the concept meaningless in the way that it is used in common parlance and the way it has always been used in anthropology, sociology etc. Dawkins and Edwards are trying to redefine the word "race" to mean something that it has never meant before - namely a fuzzy set defined by statistical correlations between allelle frequencies and continents. And they are defining taxonomy in strict genetic terms, which is also not the common way of using that sense - in Dawkins usage genetic variation between belgium and holland (as one could surely find if surveying enough loci and enough individuals) would be of taxonomical significance. Their viewopoints may be important in population genetics (although they are clearly not universally accepted since population geneticists still tend to talk about ancestral populations and geographic ancestry and not race). Untill their viewpoints are widely accepted as having replaced previous discourses about what "race" and "taxonomical significance" in generalist literature then the article will not be describing their views as the state of consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a fact and is in fact a bald faced lie. Race corresponds to observed genetic clusters which also correspond to clusters formed from phenotypic analysis a la Blumenbach. The concept of race has always referred to fuzzy sets since Blumenbach invented it, he was clear the boundaries blended into each other. Blumenbach used correlations in phenotypic traits. Now they are finding the same patterns with correlations in the genome. These are two lines of evidence for the same thing, not a "redefined concept". The "race concept" (giving names to geographic populations which show evidence of shared ancestry, whether one of them has higher "genetic diversity" or not) is of course perfectly valid and it is baffling that anybody swallows this nonsense. SusanKravitz (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Blumenbach did not invent the concept of race, and people don't generally use his definition when using the term in either in academia or in colloquial usage. People do not say "the suspect was 57% genetically white/black" but they say "the suspect is white/black" - the way race is and has been used is not as a fuzzy concept. You are allowed to be baffled, but your baffledness does not determine how we write our articles. It is by the way also incorrect to suggest that this view of genetics and race is confined to Anthropology - geneticists like Joseph Graves, Alan Templeton, John Relethford and Jonathan Marks (also an anthropologist) who are every bit as familiar with human genetic variation as Dawkins and Edwards also hold these views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually people do use this idea since they are generally aware that a small minority of people are mixed/indeterminate race. It is another lie to suggest anyone believes in an "essentialist" concept.

All Marks and Graves etc. do is parrot the fallacies (there are several of them) of Lewontin, as you can see here.[1] Note how his "arguments" are exploded in the comments section and he fails to respond. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)