An Exhaustive Review: Alan Templeton And The Question Of Human Subspecies

1.INTRODUCTION 

In recent times, a specific genetic study  has been used in a attempt to discredit race realism: Biological Races In Humans by Alan Templeton. Properly understood, Templeton’s Fallacy is this: his thesis is based on a false criteria that races must be a subspecies in order to be legitimate or meaningful. The historical and scientific observations of “man-like” groups was established regardless if the specifics of said racial theories were different: that races simply meant different populations was confirmed by people like Charles Darwin. Darwin uses the term race synchronously with the word population in his book The Descent of Man, and one can extend the definition based of off demonstrable genetic differences between sets of human populations. I fully advocate for the “race-as-a-population” definition that Darwin advocated well over a century ago. Often, genetic studies plot ethnic groups in the form of clusters and clines that measure Fst distance, but it is important to bear in mind that Fst measurement shouldn’t be the only way to measure genetic variation.  Populations often correlate with geography and linguistic categories. I will now attempt to analyze most of Templeton’s study as it is. This post is divided based on the sections that Templeton provides.

2. “The Biological Meaning of ‘Race’”

TEMPLETON WRITES: “For example, Lao et al. (2010) assessed the geographical ancestry of self-declared “whites” and “blacks” in the United States by the use of a panel of geographically informative genetic markers. It is well known that the frequencies of alleles vary over geographical space in humans. Although the differences in allele frequencies are generally very modest for any one gene, it is possible with modern DNA technology to infer the geographical ancestry of individuals by scoring large numbers of genes. Using such geographically informative markers, self-identified “whites” from the United States are primarily of European ancestry, whereas U.S. “blacks” are primarily of African ancestry, with little overlap in the amount of African ancestry between self-classified U.S. “whites” and “blacks.”(1)

This finding has been replicated many times. Bryc et al is quite arguably one of the most important genetic studies in the last ten years, as it confirms that racial labels tend correlate very well with genetic ancestry. For African Americans, 73.2% of their ancestry was African (varying regions, with the exception of Northern Africa). 24.0% of their ancestry was European. (4) The genetic evidence is resoundingly clear: the majority of African Americans have mostly Black ancestry despite have a large amount of European ancestry. In this way, we can say that African Americans are a population (race) with mostly African heritage, with European and Native American ancestry. So to the very least, Templeton is right here in that he quote a credible study.

Templeton then uses a study that analyzed the genetic admixture of Brazilians who identified as White, Black, Borwn, etc.(1)(5) Specifically, he uses Santos et al to prove that because there is massive admixture within these populations, that this makes racial labels invalid:

TEMPLETON WRITES: “In contrast, Santos et al. (2009) did a similar genetic assessment of Brazilians who self-identified themselves as “whites”, “browns”, and “blacks” and found extensive overlap in the amount of African ancestry among all these “races”. Indeed, many Brazilian “whites” have more African ancestry than some U.S. ‘blacks’. Obviously, the culturally defined racial categories of “white” and “black” do not have the same genetic meanings in the United States and Brazil.”

But what does the study actually say? The genetic results contained in that study prove that, on average, racial labels still correlate well with majoritarian ancestry. If one looks at Figure 1 within the study, the researches found that most “White” students had majority European ancestry, while a majority of “Blacks” from that area also have more African ancestry than other categories. (6) While the percentages aren’t the same necessarily, the same general phenomena is comparable to populations of the USA as I previously mentioned before from Bryc et al (2015). The most recent genetic analyses prove that if a person in Brazil has more African Ancestry there is higher,”…probability of self-declaring as black or brown increases according to the proportion of African ancestry and varies widely among cities. In Porto Alegre, where most of the population is white, with every 10% increase in the proportion of African ancestry, the odds of self-declaring as black increased 14 times (95%CI 6.08–32.81). In Salvador, where most of the population is black or brown, that increase was of 3.98 times (95%CI 2.96–5.35). The racial composition of the area of residence was also associated with the probability of self-declaring as black or brown.”(10) I simply cannot find evidence that supports the claim that “many” Brazilian whites have more African ancestry then some US blacks from Santos et al, as the study only mentions the different populations from Brazil and not America. The majority appear to have European ancestry as the largest percentage of their ancestry. Templeton’s statements are just not correct here as far as I am aware.

TEMPLETON says: “At the lowest level are demes, local breeding populations. Demes have no connotation of being a major subdivision or type within a species. In human population genetics, even small ethnic groups or tribes are frequently subdivided into multiple demes, whereas “race” always refers to a much larger grouping.”

Templeton cites no evidence for his claim that demes aren’t a “major” subdivision within  a species, and he doesn’t even define what “major” means in this context. Any subdivision would be major in terms of importance if it can be ascertained by legitimate evidence, through any proper method. And since this is ultimately about quantifying genetic variation, any credible evidence showing the said demes exist would be major. Templeton has gone to great lengths quantifying the genetic variation of human demes in his newer book entitled Human Population Genetics and Genomics. Clearly, demes are “major” in terms of importance if he is willing to go to great lengths in delineating variation for said categorization, regardless of his personal protests. That book deserves it’s own review, but regardless, suffice to say the original definition of deme was, “…any assemblage of taxonomically closely related individuals.”(4)  Bearing in mind that races are genetically distinct because of their ancestry, demes could be technically used to define races (although it isn’t my preference because of the original definition above doesn’t specify relation or admixture). Regardless, the existence of demes has certainly been contentious even among researchers who have denied race, “It may be worth mentioning some of the reasons that make it difficult to define human demes. Candidates could be ethnographic units (e.g., tribes) or geographically defined clusters of people (villages, towns, cities). They are all usually endogamous to some degree and may come closer to the definition of a deme, but there are always many possible, embarrassing choices. Many tribes have undergone extraordinary demographic expansions (e.g., in Nigeria) and are subdivided in complex ways. In tribal as in modern society, the choice of mates is largely dictated by geographic, socioeconomic, reli- races, but the continuity of the variation of gene frequencies and of mating distances at the geographic scale of demes is even more extreme than for races (Cavalli-Sforza 1958, 1963, 1986a, b)” (7) So overall, the insistence that demes must exist while race doesn’t isn’t justified. Lastly, Templeton gives no evidence for the idea that races are “larger” than demes. He cites none of the racial theorists before and after the 20th century. This is another example of a claim without any evidence.

TEMPLETON says, “The question of the existence of human “races” now becomes the question of the existence of human subspecies. This question can be addressed in an objective manner using universal criteria. The Endangered Species Act of the USA mandates the protection of endangered vertebrate subspecies (Pennock & Dimmick, 1997). Accordingly, conservation biologists have developed operational definitions of race or subspecies that are applicable to all vertebrates, and two have been used extensively in the non-human literature. These two biological definitions of subspecies or “race” will be applied to humans and to our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee, in order to avoid an anthropocentric, culture-specific definition of race.(1)

This statement can be refuted in several ways. Firstly, before Templeton had ever constructed this particular study, it was noted by Ernst Mayr that the term race was not always used synonymously with the term subspecies, “A race that is not formally designated as a subspecies is not recognized in the taxonomic hierarchy. However, the terms subspecies and geographic race are frequently used interchangeably by taxonomists working with mammals, birds, and insects. Other taxonomists apply the word race to local populations within subspecies.”(8) But as stated earlier, Charles Darwin readily categorized races as distinct populations based on phenotypic variety, and again, Darwin’s work predates Templeton. Specifically, Darwin made observations about Latin American populations, “We have now seen that a naturalist might feel himself fully justified in ranking the races of man as distinct species…On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man keep distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In Brazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese…”(2) Furthermore, Darwin talks of the races as having real tangible differences and refers to these populations as races, “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.”(2) For Darwin, the term “sub-species” was a rather vague term that designated a group of organisms below species. It was not employed in the same way that Templeton defines it through phylogenetic methods, “Some naturalists have lately employed the term “sub-species” to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments, above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, the term “sub- species” might here be used with much propriety. But from long habit the term “race” will perhaps always be employed.”(2) In reading the Descent of Man chronologically, it is clear that Darwin used the term race as a first order rather than sub-species. Meaning that when it came to classifying groups of humans or acknowledging differences between them the term race was initial term to distinguish them. Since Charles Darwin did not have the most up-to-date genetic technologies at his disposal, it might be tempting to assume that a populationist-genetic theory of race wouldn’t hold by definition. However, the very general premise of races being differentiated groups/populations is confirmed by genetic studies as a whole, therefore Darwin’s initial, general thesis was proven true, especially with the advent of the ADMIXTURE software. (5)

TEMPLETON says: “If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population.”

This is not actually a problem at all, as per the prior statements above demonstrate. Again Templeton provides no evidence that there would be “thousands” of races but it wouldn’t be a problem even he if did.

TEMPLETON says: “A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations. One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997). A common measure used to quantify the degree of differentiation is a statistic known as pairwise f_st. The pairwise f_st statistic in turn depends upon two measures of heterozygosity. The frequency with which two genes are different alleles given that they have been randomly drawn from the two populations pooled together is designated by H_t, the expected heterozygosity of the total population.” (1)

I have already demonstrated that races need not be subspecies in the way Templeton is describing. In regards to Smith et al 1997, the authors do not use the term “race” in their paper at all; the term species and subspecies is used. Why Templeton claimed that race was used as such is unknown, but clearly the burden is on him to answer why he implied race was disseminated in that article. Furthermore, other authors have noted that the 75% rule here is woefully vague, “The cited authors do not discuss magnitudes of genetic differentiation but rather the ambiguous 75% rule of thumb… Regarding the cladistic perspective…the general conventions regarding intraspecific classifications are unclear.” (9)

Sources

1. Templeton, Alan R. “Biological races in humans.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44.3 (2013): 262-271.APA
2. Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man: And Selection in Relation to Sex. London: J. Murray, 1871. Print.
3. Bryc, Katarzyna, et al. “The genetic ancestry of african americans, latinos, and european Americans across the United States.” The American Journal of Human Genetics96.1 (2015): 37-53.APA
4. GILMOUR, J. S. L., & GREGOR, J. W. (1939). Demes: A Suggested New Terminology. Nature, 144(3642), 333–333. doi:10.1038/144333a0 
5. Xing, Jinchuan, et al. “Toward a more uniform sampling of human genetic diversity: a survey of worldwide populations by high-density genotyping.” Genomics 96.4 (2010): 199-210.
6. Santos, Ricardo Ventura, et al. “Color, race, and genomic ancestry in Brazil: dialogues between anthropology and genetics.” Current anthropology 50.6 (2009): 787-819.
7. FULLERTON, MALIA. “The History and Geography of Human Genes. Abridged Paperback Edition. By L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996. Pp. 413.£ 25.00. ISBN 0 691 02905 9.” Annals of Human Genetics 61.5 (1997): 463-467.
8. Mayr, Ernst. “Principles of systematic zoology.” Principles of systematic zoology. (1969).
9. Fuerst, J. (2015). The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility.
10. Chor, Dóra, et al. “Context-dependence of race self-classification: Results from a highly mixed and unequal middle-income country.” PloS one 14.5 (2019): e0216653.