# Are Race and Genes unrelated?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 17, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108 "2007-10-17T23:15:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/101 "2007-10-20T06:13:00Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] I agree, and that is the problem with the idea of race. However, I think it is one thing to say that correlation between race and genetics is often unreliable (for the very reasons you point out) and another to say “race has NOTHING to do with genes” (the OPs question). If there is ANY higher statistical probability of finding any particular allele within one race than another, then how can one say that race has “nothing to do with genetics?” Unreliable and inaccurate, yes, but completely removed? I think the sociology professor in question was overstepping just a bit to emphasize his point. [/QUOTE] Once again, you are talking about populations, not races. Please indicate which “races” have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles throughout their global range. ---
**Author:** ![misterW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@misterW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misterW)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/102 "2007-10-20T13:00:00Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] Once again, you are talking about populations, not races. Please indicate which “races” have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles throughout their global range. [/QUOTE] Well, I guess we get to the crux of my point right here. You dont need to have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles **throughout a global range** for the concept of race to provide SOME kind of useful information, even if it is very limited. I’m sure you agree that isolated populations (I know, I’m talking about populations, but hear me out) in the world will sometimes have rare alleles that are not found in other populations in the world. Suppose you take a rare allele found only in the bushmen of south africa. These bushmen would check off “black” if presented with a census form. Therefore, I can say that it is statistically more likely for a random man who checks off “black” to have this rare “allele” than a random man who checks off “white”. Granted, the chances of a “black” man having this allele are very small, since only a small subset of the “black race” (the population of bushmen) have it with any regularity – but the chances of a “white” man having it are virtually nonexistent. Thus, the concept of race can be linked in some small way to genes, which is enough to refute the sociology professor who claimed race to have NOTHING to do with genes. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/103 "2007-10-20T15:35:04Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] Well, I guess we get to the crux of my point right here. You dont need to have a statistically different distribution of particular alleles **throughout a global range** for the concept of race to provide SOME kind of useful information, even if it is very limited. I’m sure you agree that isolated populations (I know, I’m talking about populations, but hear me out) in the world will sometimes have rare alleles that are not found in other populations in the world. Suppose you take a rare allele found only in the bushmen of south africa. These bushmen would check off “black” if presented with a census form. Therefore, I can say that it is statistically more likely for a random man who checks off “black” to have this rare “allele” than a random man who checks off “white”. Granted, the chances of a “black” man having this allele are very small, since only a small subset of the “black race” (the population of bushmen) have it with any regularity – but the chances of a “white” man having it are virtually nonexistent. Thus, the concept of race can be linked in some small way to genes, which is enough to refute the sociology professor who claimed race to have NOTHING to do with genes. [/QUOTE] But this really is completely meaningless relative to the relationship of genetics and race. That allele can only be used to identify members of the Bushman population; it has nothing to do with being black or the concept of race. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/104 "2007-10-20T16:58:53Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] But if you are unable to define even what _you yourself_ mean by the word “white,” your posting in this thread at all would seem to be utterly without value. [/quote] I don’t see why. Perhaps there is more than 1 way to define “white” as a race. But any reasonable definition would include Brad Pitt. > [@](#): > > You accused _me_ of sidetracking the discussion. Did I claim that your practice was to sidetrack discussions? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > It is laughable to characterize my pointing out that you yourself do this frequently is a “personal attack.” Laugh all you want, but it’s my opinion. > [@](#): > > But you are unable to offer anything at all? Nothing whatsoever? It’s not a matter of ability. I just think it would sidetrack the discussion. > [@](#): > > We must know what you mean by the word “white” before we can even begin to know what your comments are supposed to mean. If you won’t concede that Brad Pitt is “white,” then attempting to educate you on issues of race and genetics is probably a waste of time. > [@](#): > > The whole point, of course, is that race cannot be defined precisely. And my point is that a precise definition is not necessary in order to conclude that “race has nothing to do with genes” is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/105 "2007-10-20T17:08:53Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t see why. Perhaps there is more than 1 way to define “white” as a race. But any reasonable definition would include Brad Pitt. [/quote] Then why can’t you provide such a definition? > [@](#): > > Did I claim that your practice was to sidetrack discussions? I don’t think so. If you don’t want to be called on it, I would suggest that you stop sidetracking discussions, then. > [@](#): > > Laugh all you want, but it’s my opinion. I will. So do many others, I am sure. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of ability. I just think it would sidetrack the discussion. Absolute rubbish. You consistently sidetrack discussions. You simply are unable to provide a definition. > [@](#): > > If you won’t concede that Brad Pitt is “white,” then attempting to educate you on issues of race and genetics is probably a waste of time. Provide the definition according to which he is white, then. It should be quite simple. > [@](#): > > And my point is that a precise definition is not necessary in order to conclude that “race has nothing to do with genes” is incorrect. Prove it. Show your work. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/106 "2007-10-20T17:40:17Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] Then why can’t you provide such a definition? [/quote] Who says I can’t? > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to be called on it, I would suggest that you stop sidetracking discussions, then. And I would suggest that you take your personal attacks elsewhere. > [@](#): > > You simply are unable to provide a definition. Start a thread about an appropriate definition of “race,” and we’ll see. > [@](#): > > Provide the definition according to which he is white, then. It should be quite simple. How about this: I will give you 1 commonly used definition for race under which he is white. Ok? > [@](#): > > Prove it. Show your work. I already did in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/107 "2007-10-20T19:16:03Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Who says I can’t? And I would suggest that you take your personal attacks elsewhere. Start a thread about an appropriate definition of “race,” and we’ll see. How about this: I will give you 1 commonly used definition for race under which he is white. Ok? I already did in this thread. [/QUOTE] [Moderator instructions] Ok, **brazil84.** I’ve had enough of these games by you. GQ is a place for factual responses to factual questions, not for unsupported opinion and content-free posts as most of yours are. You do this far more than any other single poster in this forum, so I am going to give you some special instructions. Your behavior is not in accord with the purpose of this forum, or of the SDMB in general. It has been remarked on by moderation staff elsewhere as well, in particular GD. You have already prompted me to close one thread in this forum, and send another to GD. I don’t want to have to continue to do that. I am officially instructing you to restrict yourself to factual posts in this forum. If I or any other poster requests you to back up one of your posts, your next response must contain an authoritative cite or other substantive information to support your statements. Otherwise you must refrain from responding further in the thread. No more of these one-sentence responses. The moderation staff will be the sole judge of whether your responses are appropriate. Failure to comply with this will result in an official warning. If you wish to complain about how unfair all this is, you may start a thread in the Pit. Do not do so here. I hope my instructions are clearly understood. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![misterW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@misterW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misterW)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/108 "2007-10-20T20:04:50Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] But this really is completely meaningless relative to the relationship of genetics and race. That allele can only be used to identify members of the Bushman population; it has nothing to do with being black or the concept of race. [/QUOTE] I agree that that particular rare allele has nothing to do with the alleles that determine skin color. But isnt race simply a collection of expectations that we have? And couldnt those expectations be a collection of statistical probabilities of genes that are carried? ie someone of the “black” race is more likely to have that rare allele from the bushman population than someone from the white race. Obviously most of the time they wont have it, but it IS more likely. And if someone is from the “oriental” race they are statistically more likely to have alleles that result in an epicanthic fold than other races (although we both know that epicanthic folds CAN be found in other races). If knowing what race someone checks off on a census allows you to make numerous statistical predictions as to alleles that they carry, how can we say that race has nothing to do with genes? ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/109 "2007-10-22T16:00:57Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] If knowing what race someone checks off on a census allows you to make numerous statistical predictions as to alleles that they carry, how can we say that race has nothing to do with genes? [/QUOTE] Because it’s like measuring the volume of a liquid with a ruler - too often inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. The expectations set up by skin color are just a silly way to try to measure allele frequency when you can use the actual population those alleles come from instead. It’s the 21st century, we shouldn’t cling to our cultural notions of race from the 18th and 19th centuries when genetics has shown us a far better way to measure allele frequencies any more than we cling to morse code for our data transmission needs. Anyone here posting from a [Telegraph Key](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J38TelegraphKey.jpg)? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![misterW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@misterW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misterW)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/110 "2007-10-22T21:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=wevets] Because it’s like measuring the volume of a liquid with a ruler - too often inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. The expectations set up by skin color are just a silly way to try to measure allele frequency when you can use the actual population those alleles come from instead. It’s the 21st century, we shouldn’t cling to our cultural notions of race from the 18th and 19th centuries when genetics has shown us a far better way to measure allele frequencies any more than we cling to morse code for our data transmission needs. Anyone here posting from a [Telegraph Key](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:J38TelegraphKey.jpg)? 😉 [/QUOTE] I agree – the concept of race is inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. I am not extolling its virtues; I am simply pointing out that those who say that it has NOTHING to do with genetics (ie OP’s professor) are going too far. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2007, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/111 "2007-10-22T23:31:00Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] I agree – the concept of race is inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. I am not extolling its virtues; I am simply pointing out that those who say that it has NOTHING to do with genetics (ie OP’s professor) are going too far. [/QUOTE] OK. Would you consider it fair enough if I said this: The concept of race has _insufficient_ basis in genetics to be a useful term in science. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/112 "2007-10-23T01:31:36Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] If knowing what race someone checks off on a census allows you to make numerous statistical predictions as to alleles that they carry, how can we say that race has nothing to do with genes? [/QUOTE] No, you “self identify” _your own race_ on such forms (the possible exception being Native American for some things). In other words, they are asking you what “race” \*you identify yourself \*with. This is a perfectly valid sociological question. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108/113 "2007-10-23T01:36:33Z")
[QUOTE=misterW] I agree – the concept of race is inaccurate, cumbersome, and prone to error. I am not extolling its virtues; I am simply pointing out that those who say that it has NOTHING to do with genetics (ie OP’s professor) are going too far. [/QUOTE] As I’ve said earlier, it depends on the context. In the US, where most people come from only a few of the worldwide populations that exist, you can make a pretty good correlation between genetics and what people call race here. But that’s because we’ve interrupted the worldwide genetic continuum in order to populate this country. (Note: You do have to exclude certain groups of the people in the US for this to work well, but it’s probably not too bad.) But if you look at the entire world, where there is genetic continuum wherever you go, you cannot define race well enough for it to have any meaning in the first place-- you’d have to exclude large numbers of people in order to artificially create genetic islands that you could then try and correlate to to some version of race. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-race-and-genes-unrelated/423108.md?page=5)