# Chen019, you are a liar. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 9, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246 "2012-03-09T09:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/201 "2012-03-13T22:37:38Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > I’m drawing a conclusion based upon your behavior in this thread and your numerous references to refusing to speak to people because they out-argue you. Complete nonsense. Of the people in this thread I have refused to engage with, I have not considered (the substance of) their posts at all. That’s because my disengagement with them is a result of their past behavior. Of which you seem to know nothing. > [@](#): > > it’s pretty obvious that it’s your all-purpose response to people who outmatch you. Again, more nonsense. I ignore people only when they violate my rules of debate. > [@](#): > > No, there is absolutely no reason why I should have to quote you on this point unless you’re now claiming you _don’t_ believe that it’s possible that these different “races” have statistically different traits. The reason I want you to quote me is because I don’t understand what position you were ascribing to me. But I do think that different “races” have statistically different traits. I gather you believe they do not? > [@](#): > > It means you need to get a dictionary. I’m not going to define every single common word I use because you prefer to avoid substantial discussions. Well will you accept the definition I have offered? And please answer my question: Does the principal you (seem to have) expressed apply to other categorization schemes? For example, if there is a Category X and a Category Y, and there are many members of Category X which are closer to members of category Y than to their fellow members of Category X, does it follow that this categorization scheme is not useful? > [@](#): > > Uh, this ought to be obvious. It’s not obvious to me. The claim on the table is that there is a rule which provides that “if you are dividing people into groups, the groups can’t be paraphyletic.” Please give me a cite for this rule. > [@](#): > > It was an assumption underlying my post; it honestly had not occurred to me to explain such a basic and fundamental concept. So you admit that it was not expressly stated in your post? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/202 "2012-03-13T22:54:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Psssst: most of the guys you’re talking about are actually from Jamaica. > > Again, this showcases one of the most bizarre aspects of the so-called “race realist” approach to terminology: their insistence on using a **less** accurate and **less** descriptive term in preference to a **more** accurate and descriptive one. > > If you want to specify a group of people who have produced a lot of fast sprinters, and six out of the top eight all-time fastest sprinters are Jamaican-born, then why would you insist on referring to them as “from West Africa” instead of “from Jamaica”? > > I mean, when we talk about the current rugby world champions, we don’t say that most of them are “from the British Isles” just because they’re descended from British colonists. We say that they’re “from New Zealand”. Which they are. In the list I gave you, 14 out of 14 were (supposedly) of West African descent. Feel free to prove that wrong if you disagree with the other cite I provided. In your case, 6 out of 8 fall into the Jamaican category. Two questions. 1) Do you think 14 out of 14 is a more striking outcome than 6 out of 8? 2) We’re talking about race. Do you think that race to be more likely in play when pointing to a tiny nation, which we know to have a highly mixed population, or when talking about a huge swath of a continent? NOw, this doesn’t mean that there might be something about being Jamaican that acts in pone’s favor when it comes to sprinting ability. There may very well be. It might be that they carry that fast sprinter gene that all West Africans have and that might explain it all. It might be that when that gene comes into contact with another gene, that a SUPER sprinting gene is the result. It might be that genes play no role, and it is all due to diet, or to a culture that supports and pushes sprinting. It might be some combination of all these factors. Perhaps someone, you(?), should look into it. Meanwhile, we have 14 of the 14 fastest people on the planet sharing a West African ancestry. We also have the marathon dominated by people sharing East Africa ancestry. But, nah, race can’t be involved. If you think so you’re a racist. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/203 "2012-03-13T23:02:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Do you agree that the difference in BMI between the most and least obese people (among the obese) is far more than the difference in average BMIs between obese people and non-obese people? > > Do you agree that among {people with hypertension}, the difference in blood pressures between the most and least hypertensive is greater than the difference in average blood pressures of {people with hypertension} and {everyone else}? Why are you substituting range for variance? I would not make such a comparison because it is statistically crude especially if I had the mean (or average). Why would I lump together overweight, healthy BMI and underweight people and then compare this group to obese people? What value is there in a circular definition? What can I predict about a person if I know they are obese or hypertensive? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/204 "2012-03-13T23:18:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Why are you substituting range for variance? I’m not sure what you mean by “substituting,” but I made my best guess about what people meant by their claims about variation. However, since you raised the issue, I will ask you: When you say “there must be greater variation between two categories than within a category,” how do you measure variation between categories? How do you measure variation within a category? > [@](#): > > Why would I lump together overweight, healthy BMI and underweight people and then compare this group to obese people? You might want to explore whether “obese people” have some special characteristic compared to the rest of the population. > [@](#): > > What value is there in a circular definition? None that I can see. Why do you ask? > [@](#): > > What can I predict about a person if I know they are obese or hypertensive? According to a web site I found with about 10 seconds of Googling, “Obesity is associated with increased risks of cancers of the esophagus, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium (the lining of the uterus), colon and rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, gallbladder, and possibly other cancer types.” > **[Obesity and Cancer Fact Sheet](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet)** > > A fact sheet that summarizes the evidence linking overweight and obesity to the risk of various cancers and discusses how obesity affects cancer survivors. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/205 "2012-03-14T00:33:56Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Complete nonsense. Of the people in this thread I have refused to engage with, I have not considered (the substance of) their posts at all. That’s because my disengagement with them is a result of their past behavior. Of which you seem to know nothing. I’m not going to dig through your old arguments to watch you embarrass yourself in the way you are here, if that’s what you mean. I can draw likely conclusions based on your present behavior, and theirs, and that makes me feel pretty comfortable with my conclusion that, your rationalizations aside, your refusal to engage with Ibn Warraq or Kimstu was a result of them showing you up. Because it seems very likely that they did. [QUOTE=brazil84] Again, more nonsense. I ignore people only when they violate my rules of debate. [/QUOTE] Yes. And I think – based on your performance here and based on the performances of the people you’re discussing – that, whether or not you are willing to admit it, the “rule” is a rule about not making you look bad. [QUOTE=brazil84] But I do think that different “races” have statistically different traits. I gather you believe they do not? [/quote] Until one of you comes up with an actual rigorous definition of “race”, I think it’s foolish to even discuss what we can say about members of these “races”. Since as far as I can see – and none of you have given me any reason to doubt this – racial groups are social phenomena, ascribing innate differences to different “races” is putting the cart well before the horse. It makes about as much sense – at this stage in the debate, since none of you can come up with any theory of race that makes any sense – as discussing statistical differences between people dominated by black bile and those dominated by phlegm. [QUOTE=brazil84] So you admit that it was not expressly stated in your post? [/QUOTE] “Admit” seems like a funny choice of word here. But yes, I did in fact imagine that that would be obvious to everyone. It _is_ obvious if you’ve ever seriously looked at population genetics or any other system involving taxonomic descriptions of entities resulting from evolution. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/206 "2012-03-14T00:52:03Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > I’m not going to dig through your old arguments i.e. you have no interest in actually backing up your claim. > [@](#): > > your refusal to engage with Ibn Warraq or Kimstu was a result of them showing you up. Nonsense. It was for violating my rules. Which you would know if you actually looked at the facts honestly and with an open mind. Instead of just making an assumption without actually looking at the facts. > [@](#): > > whether or not you are willing to admit it, the “rule” is a rule about not making you look bad. Lol, I guess that means **Blake** and **DocCathode** haven’t made me look bad . . . yet. Same for you, but I have a feeling it’s about to happen. I mean, you “making me look bad” by ignoring simple, reasonable questions about your position. > [@](#): > > Until one of you comes up with an actual rigorous definition of “race”, I think it’s foolish to even discuss what we can say about members of these “races”. Does this claim apply to all categories? i.e. you will not discuss what can be said about members of a particular category until and unless there is an “actual rigorous definition”? > [@](#): > > “Admit” seems like a funny choice of word here. But yes, I did in fact imagine that that would be obvious to everyone. It seems to me it follows that **Blake** was wrong when he said that you “clearly said” that (among other things) "[t]here is of course a rule which says that if you are dividing people into groups, the groups can’t be paraphyletic. " By the way, one of my rules of debate is that you must answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position. Twice I have asked you the following question: Does the principal you (seem to have) expressed apply to other categorization schemes? For example, if there is a Category X and a Category Y, and there are many members of Category X which are closer to members of category Y than to their fellow members of Category X, does it follow that this categorization scheme is not useful? This is the third time. Please stop ignoring the question. Also, please tell me if you will accept my definition of “useful.” ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/207 "2012-03-14T01:04:19Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > i.e. you have no interest in actually backing up your claim. Lol, what a ridiculous bit of pseudointellectual posturing. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. It was for violating my rules. Which you would know if you actually looked at the facts honestly and with an open mind. Instead of just making an assumption without actually looking at the facts. I came to this with an open mind, not knowing any of you from Adam, and it is my honest opinion that nothing but childish rationalization could lead someone to believe that Kimstu’s sin was violating any legitimate rule of debate while arguing with you, rather than just plain out-arguing you. Because unless she has recently leveled up several times in internet debating, it seems pretty clear that she wouldn’t have to resort to intellectual dishonesty in a contest with you. > [@](#): > > Lol, I guess that means **Blake** and **DocCathode** haven’t made me look bad . . . yet. DocCathode certainly hasn’t, at any rate. I wish he hadn’t posted; I liked this thread better when the “race realists” were the only ones babbling incoherently. > [@](#): > > Same for you, but I have a feeling it’s about to happen. I mean, you “making me look bad” by ignoring simple, reasonable questions about your position. I haven’t ignored any reasonable question. [QUOTE] Does this claim apply to all categories? i.e. you will not discuss what can be said about members of a particular category until and unless there is an “actual rigorous definition”? Unless there is some definition for a category, it’s obviously impossible to discuss it seriously. I’m open to alternative (i.e. non-Aristotelian) definitions of categories, if that’s what you prefer – perhaps you prefer the blurrier schema of categorization elucidated by Wittgenstein? Although in this context I can’t quite make that one work. Either way, until I have some way to decide whether a category actually represents some useful group, and what the categorization scheme is based on, I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion about what members of that category are like. And again, this is something that would be obvious if you were familiar with the problems inherent in taxonomy. > [@](#): > > It seems to me it follows that **Blake** was wrong when he said that you “clearly said” that (among other things) "[t]here is of course a rule which says that if you are dividing people into groups, the groups can’t be paraphyletic. " It was clear to him. The fact that it wasn’t clear _to you_ evidently does not mean it was unclear to others. > [@](#): > > By the way, one of my rules of debate is that you must answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position. Start asking reasonable questions. > [@](#): > > Twice I have asked you the following question: > > Does the principal you (seem to have) expressed apply to other categorization schemes? For example, if there is a Category X and a Category Y, and there are many members of Category X which are closer to members of category Y than to their fellow members of Category X, does it follow that this categorization scheme is not useful? > > This is the third time. Please stop ignoring the question. I can’t make generalizations about categorization, because useful approaches to categorization depend on what you’re categorizing. So I can’t answer this question in a useful way until you turn it into a question explicitly relating to taxonomy. > [@](#): > > Also, please tell me if you will accept my definition of “useful.” We’re not there yet. Talking about making predictions before you’ve even established what your categories are and how they’re defined is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse that they’re in different time zones. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/208 "2012-03-14T01:11:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In the list I gave you, 14 out of 14 were (supposedly) of West African descent. They’re presumably at least **partly** of West African descent at **some** point in their ancestry, although since the Caribbean and North America have a high rate of genetic mixing in their black populations, they’re all probably partly of European descent too. But that doesn’t make them “from West Africa”. You might as well say that President Obama, Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, and I are all “from Scotland” because we’re all partly of Scottish descent. > [@magellan01](#): > > Two questions. 1) Do you think 14 out of 14 is a more striking outcome than 6 out of 8? Well, when the 14 out of 14 refers only to some unknown degree of common membership in a vaguely defined category that’s so broad as to include from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 of all the people in the world… …and the 6 out of 8 refers to absolutely certain common membership in a very specific and quite unusual national/ethnic identity that comprises _ **fewer than 1 in 2000** _ of all the people in the world… …then I must say that the 6 out of 8 statistic seems to me a **much** more striking outcome. Especially when you consider that we’re talking about such an unusually elite and high-achieving group as the world’s fastest sprinters. I mean, hell, there are literally billions of people scattered all over the globe who have had some ancestor at some point in the last dozen generations or so who lived in West Africa. But that a full three-quarters of the _ **fastest runners in all the world** _ should have been born natives of the **same** bitsy little Caribbean island with fewer than three million people? Now **that** gives one to think. So yeah, if I were going to point to a group of people who were quite significantly remarkable for turning out superlatively fast sprinters, I’d pick “Jamaicans”. Not “people whom from their appearance and socio-ethnic background I can fairly confidently presume to have at least partly West African ancestry”. (And I would not refer to the latter group as being “from West Africa”, either.) > [@magellan01](#): > > 1. We’re talking about race. Yup, we are. And as I noted above, this is exactly the sort of thing that’s so weird about discussions where people insist on the genetic significance of vaguely defined and assigned racial categories. Namely, that they prefer to use a racial category even when it’s **less** descriptive and **less** accurate for referring to a particular group of people than a different sort of category would be. Similarly, it’s weird to insist that sub-Saharan Africans and people descended from them can be reliably identified as belonging to a category called “the Black race” because of their dark skin and kinky hair, and then to insist that, say, Melanesians and Aborigines have to be _a priori_ **excluded** from the category called “the Black race” _ **despite** _ their dark skin and kinky hair. I mean, obviously, the only reason you don’t include Melanesians and Aborigines in “the Black race” is that you already **know** from actual genetic data that they’re no more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans than Europeans or Asians are. So why hang on to a phenotype-based category of such limited utility that you have to pre-emptively exclude from it large populations even of people who **share** that same phenotype? Why not just talk about human populations in terms of their **actual genetic** relationships, and let ill-assorted and ill-defined vague designations like “black” and “white” go hang? That wouldn’t stop you from postulating your hypothetical “sprinter gene”, or from studying the actual genetic makeup of fast sprinters to try to track it down. Heck, it would make it **more** easy to find actual genetic similarities and differences, because you would no longer be wasting time with speculative and unscientific classifications based on dubious racial categories. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/209 "2012-03-14T01:17:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But that doesn’t make them “from West Africa”. You might as well say that President Obama [is] “from Scotland” :eek: No wonder he won’t show his birth certificate! > [@](#): > > Well, when the 14 out of 14 refers only to some unknown degree of common membership in a vaguely defined category that’s so broad as to include from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 of all the people in the world… > > …and the 6 out of 8 refers to absolutely certain common membership in a very specific and quite unusual national/ethnic identity that comprises fewer than 1 in 2000 of all the people in the world… > > …then I must say that the 6 out of 8 statistic seems to me a much more striking outcome. Especially when you consider that we’re talking about such an unusually elite and high-achieving group as the world’s fastest sprinters. > > I mean, hell, there are literally billions of people scattered all over the globe who have had some ancestor at some point in the last dozen generations or so who lived in West Africa. But that a full three-quarters of the fastest runners in all the world should have been born natives of the same bitsy little Caribbean island with fewer than three million people? Now that gives one to think. > > So yeah, if I were going to point to a group of people who were quite significantly remarkable for turning out superlatively fast sprinters, I’d pick “Jamaicans”. Not “people whom from their appearance and socio-ethnic background I can fairly confidently presume to have at least partly West African ancestry”. (And I would not refer to the latter group as being “from West Africa”, either.) Whoa, that really is pretty amazing. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/210 "2012-03-14T01:35:28Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Lol, what a ridiculous bit of pseudointellectual posturing. Lol, it’s 100% true. You have claimed (in essence) that I refuse to engage with certain people for certain reasons. You admit that you have not looked at the actual exchanges in question. You refuse to do so. > [@](#): > > I came to this with an open mind, If your mind were even the slightest bit open, you would have said something like this: > [@](#): > > I have a hard time believing that **kimstu** and **Ibn Warraq** violated any legitimate rules of debate. Can you show me where they did so? But you didn’t do that. You pronounced judgment without looking at the actual facts – without even expressing interest in looking at the actual facts. > [@](#): > > It was clear to him. The fact that it wasn’t clear to you evidently does not mean it was unclear to others. The question was whether you clearly said something. Which you obviously did not. > [@](#): > > I haven’t ignored any reasonable question. Sure you have. I asked whether the principle you (seem to have) expressed applies generally. Also, you refuse to explain what you mean by “useful” or even to say whether you accept my definition. Anyway, I have no interest in engaging with a person who evades simple, reasonable questions about his position. Welcome to my ignore list. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/211 "2012-03-14T01:37:40Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Until one of you comes up with an actual rigorous definition of “race”, I think it’s foolish to even discuss what we can say about members of these “races”. I thought this had been [discussed already](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=609125). [Jerry Coyne](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) defined it in his post as follows: > [@](#): > > “In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.” Mayr & O’Brien set out this approach: > [@](#): > > In an attempt to provide formal criteria for subspecies classifications we offer the following guidelines: Members of a subspecies share a unique geographical range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. (O’Brien and Mayr, 1991. Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies.)” As I pointed out on the other [thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14865313&postcount=316) > [@](#): > > As the Turtle Taxonomy recommendations suggest - you’re looking at describing the major patterns of variation within a species. > > ““We propose that subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species. A precise definition of “major” is elusive, but the formal subspecific description of small, isolated populations, particularly in low vagility species, should be avoided unless there is strong reason to do otherwise. This could avoid the proliferation of named forms of small, isolated populations such as occurred with pocket gophers in western North America (Smith and Patton (1988). (Bickham (2007). Turtle Taxonomy: Methodology, Recommendations, and Guideline).” > > For example McEvoy et al 2010: > > \*The tree divides the populations into five broad groups: African, East Asian, West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asian populations), American, and Oceanic. \* > > Obviously you can get into endless debates over what is meant by “major” (ie. lumpers vs splitters). You could split those groups up further as discussed here on Dienekes anthropology site. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/212 "2012-03-14T01:47:22Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > But you didn’t do that. You pronounced judgment without looking at the actual facts – without even expressing interest in looking at the actual facts. I looked at your posts in this thread. If you were capable of arguing like a grown-up, you’d acknowledge that looking at someone’s behavior and drawing conclusions from it was a legitimate thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/213 "2012-03-14T01:52:20Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I thought this had been [discussed already](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=609125). [Jerry Coyne](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) defined it in his post as follows: > > Mayr & O’Brien set out this approach: > > As I pointed out on the other [thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14865313&postcount=316) How . . . unsurprising . . . that your defenders aren’t sharing your approach. And how . . . unsurprising . . . that you quote definitions that obviously don’t apply to humans. And how . . . unsurprising . . . that you don’t have a list of these human races. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/214 "2012-03-14T01:53:05Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > […]races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. _are geographically separated_). […] > > > [@](#): > > > > […] Members of a subspecies _share a unique geographical range or habitat_, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. (Emphasis added.) Oh. Well, so much for that, then. Actually, I guess there are a few small human populations in various remote areas, like the Sentinelese and some New Guinean and South American peoples, that could perhaps qualify as genetic “subspecies” of _Homo sapiens_. But as anybody who’s walked past an Amsterdam whorehouse on a Saturday night knows, there are no major “racial” groupings of human beings living in allopatry. Qu- **ite** the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/215 "2012-03-14T01:55:40Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > And how . . . unsurprising . . . that you quote definitions that obviously don’t apply to humans. Why so smarmy? Is it impossible for people to have a polite conversation? Anyway, the [definitions do apply to humans](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) (unless you think humans are unique from other species and haven’t been geographically separated by oceans, deserts, mountains etc). If you had bothered to read my links you would have seen: > [@](#): > > What are races? > > In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes. > > Under that criterion, are there human races? > > Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups. Why the reluctance to apply the same approach to humans? This may be one reason: > [@](#): > > Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, said that the conclusion that race was not a valid concept ‘‘comes from honest and brilliant people who are not population geneticists.’’ > > ‘‘That doesn’t mean they are insincere,’’ Dr. O’Brien said. ‘‘It’s just that they haven’t really looked at it. What is happening here is that Neil and his colleagues have decided the pendulum of political correctness has taken the field in a direction that will hurt epidemiological assessment of disease in the very minorities the defenders of political correctness wish to protect.’’ [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/216 "2012-03-14T02:07:29Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Why so smarmy? Is it impossible for people to have a polite conversation? Honestly? I have to assume someone who suggests that different human races are living in geographical isolation from others is being disingenuous, so I feel no reason to be any more polite in response. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the [definitions do apply to humans](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/) (unless you think humans are unique from other species and haven’t been geographically separated by oceans, deserts, mountains etc). Why, there are black people right next door! How did they ever cross all those mountain ranges? > [@](#): > > If you had bothered to read my links you would have seen: I read some of your links earlier this thread. I learned that your links don’t say what you claim they say. I’m not going to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt. > [@](#): > > Why the reluctance to apply the same approach to humans? This may be one reason: And yet, due to my excessive generosity of spirit, I clicked this link and discovered that it, too, doesn’t really back your claims. Coincidentally I happen to have just stopped reading a book that had been okay (if a bit simplistic) when I got to the last chapter, in which he, like you, equivocates between definitions of “races” and definitions of ethnicities, and uses evidence (like your link) that demonstrates the validity of looking for particular genetic traits in people of certain ethnic backgrounds (not something that is in doubt) to try to “prove” the validity of broad racial classifications. The author, like you, is not a scientist or any kind of expert in the field; I suppose that is why the author, like you, is not able to make these distinctions, and thus errs in attempting to prove one thing by proving something else (something uncontroversial). And like you, makes the error of attributing other peoples’ greater degree of rigor in approaching the question to some political motivation rather than a more thorough evaluation of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/217 "2012-03-14T02:14:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > They’re presumably at least **partly** of West African descent at **some** point in their ancestry, although since the Caribbean and North America have a high rate of genetic mixing in their black populations, they’re all probably partly of European descent too. Okay. Let’s say that no one had looked at any commonality among elite sprinters, and then you come along and say, Hey, wow, it looks like Jamaican runners are really fast. They account for MUCH more of the world’s fastest humans than we should see. Wonder why that is. A I think I’ll look into it". Now if that is your starting point, you’d look at as many factors that would explain their dominance as you could, correct? You’d look at culture (like Canada’s infatuation with hockey), diet, and dare I say it, genetics. Correct so far? As you have your assistants looking into culture and diet, you set a third researcher off to look into genetics. Would you be surprised when that researcher came back and said something to the effect, “I think there’s really something to this genetic explanation”?..Because while 6 out of 8 of the best sprinters in the world can be considered “Jamaican”, ALL of them—_at least_ 14 out of the top 14 have skin that would categorize them as “black” and ALL of them share a fairly recent ancestry (under 400 years or so) of West Africa. Doesn’t that make sense? So we arrive at the same point even if our impetus starts where you think it more logically should. Also, if you have any other theories as to what factors might cause Jamaicans to do so well at sprinting, this would be a good time to offer them up. I mentioned earlier that there could be additional, even overriding factors, but so far the strongest correlation we see that might explain fast sprinting seems to reside in some “West African” gene. Either by itself or in conjunction with something else. But it doesn’t seem anything that could reasonably be ignored at this point. Or not be viewed as the primary thing to look at. > [@Kimstu](#): > > But that doesn’t make them “from West Africa”. You might as well say that President Obama, Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, and I are all “from Scotland” because we’re all partly of Scottish descent. Oh, come on. Equating a tiny country with artificial borders to a huge swath of a continent is disingenuous in the extreme. > [@Kimstu](#): > > …then I must say that the 6 out of 8 statistic seems to me a **much** more striking outcome. Especially when you consider that we’re talking about such an unusually elite and high-achieving group as the world’s fastest sprinters. I agree that it is striking. But wouldn’t an inquiry starting with that lead you to this very discussion? > [@Kimstu](#): > > I mean, obviously, the only reason you don’t include Melanesians and Aborigines in “the Black race” is that you already **know** from actual genetic data that they’re no more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans than Europeans or Asians are. Actually, that’s not true. Aborigines look rather different to me. For one, their hair is not as kinky. PLus, as I’ve said earlier, I’m not of the opinion that black skin in and of itself points to an African ancestry. As I think you know, it can be a response to environment over time. > [@Kimstu](#): > > So why hang on to a phenotype-based category of such limited utility that you have to pre-emptively exclude from it large populations even of people who **share** that same phenotype? Why not just talk about human populations in terms of their **actual genetic** relationships, and let ill-assorted and ill-defined vague designations like “black” and “white” go hang? Because they seem to be helpful as a starting point. Also, it seems to be a characteristic that people who run fast share. Let’s say that humans did not have the ability of sight. Leaving aside the comedically tragic images of a blind people sprinting into trees and off rock cliffs, imagine that we get a visitor from another planet who can see. We have this discussion with him while somehow examine strands of DNA and he sits back and says, “Hey, I know that you guys aren’;t able to notice this, but they’re all Black.” You seem to be willing to go to any extreme to not have color on the table? As if that is the predetermined goal. I find that highly restrictive and exceedingly odd. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/218 "2012-03-14T02:14:28Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > And yet, due to my excessive generosity of spirit, I clicked this link and discovered that it, too, doesn’t really back your claims. Coincidentally I happen to have just stopped reading a book that had been okay (if a bit simplistic) when I got to the last chapter, in which he, like you, equivocates between definitions of “races” and definitions of ethnicities, and uses evidence (like your link) that demonstrates the validity of looking for particular genetic traits in people of certain ethnic backgrounds (not something that is in doubt) to try to “prove” the validity of broad racial classifications. > > The author, like you, is not a scientist or any kind of expert in the field; I suppose that is why the author, like you, is not able to make these distinctions, and thus errs in attempting to prove one thing by proving something else (something uncontroversial). And like you, makes the error of attributing other peoples’ greater degree of rigor in approaching the question to some political motivation rather than a more thorough evaluation of the evidence. What was the book? Anyway, I’m not sure how the link doesn’t back my claims. [Jerry Coyne](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/)is simply saying that according to the commonly used definition of race in evolutionary biology there are human races too (ie. humans aren’t special or unique compared to other species). > [@](#): > > **you also said** I have to assume someone who suggests that different human races are living in geographical isolation from others is being disingenuous, so I feel no reason to be any more polite in response. We are talking [about the past 50,000 or so years -](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html): > [@](#): > > Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees. > > This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10. > > Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/219 "2012-03-14T02:24:19Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Anyway, I’m not sure how the link doesn’t back my claims. For one thing, he says “I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races” – which goes against the ‘race realist’ positions you appear to have been arguing. In fact, it shows that he’s actually making a completely uncontroversial argument that ethnic background is relevant in medical treatment – something few would argue with. No one is trying to claim that, say, Ashkenazi Jews aren’t more likely to carry the gene for Tay-Sachs. But you’re implicitly attempting to use that sort of argument – that’s the kind of thing Coyne is saying – to advance the idea that there are broad human racial groups, something most experts seem to reject. > [@](#): > > We are talking [about the past 50,000 or so years -](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html): Yes, and while our ability to trace human migrations with any certainty is largely limited to much later periods, we know that people were traveling far and wide long before the age of exploration. We can say with certainty that large, long-distance migrations predate history. So while perhaps the degree of isolation this definition describes existed before the era of behavioral modernity, it clearly hasn’t existed for thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/220 "2012-03-14T02:28:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Hmmm. Oh, only if there was some other explanation. Oh wait, there is! As it turns out, \*\*the fastest sprinters in the world are all Black. \*\*[See for yourself](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres), ya dummy. > > Rank Fastest time Athlete Country Date Location > 1 9.58 Usain Bolt Jamaica 16 August 2009 Berlin > 2 9.69 Tyson Gay United States 20 September 2009 Shanghai > 3 9.72 Asafa Powell Jamaica 2 September 2008 Lausanne > 4 9.78 Nesta Carter Jamaica 29 August 2010 Rieti > 5 9.79 Maurice Greene United States 16 June 1999 Athens > 6 9.80 Steve Mullings Jamaica 4 June 2011 Eugene > 7 9.82 Yohan Blake Jamaica 8 September 2011 Zurich > 8 9.84 Donovan Bailey Canada 27 July 1996 Atlanta > Bruny Surin Canada 22 August 1999 Seville > 10 9.85 Leroy Burrell United States 6 July 1994 Lausanne > Justin Gatlin United States 22 August 2004 Athens > Olusoji Fasuba Nigeria 12 May 2006 Doha > Mike Rodgers United States 4 June 2011 Eugene > Richard Thompson Trinidad and Tobago 13 August 2011 Port of Spain > > \*\*Why you would categorize the fastest sprinters in the whorl, who happen to all be Black, \*\* as “niggers” is beyond me. Can you explain that to me, you dumb racist bastard. Why do you describe these men as “black”? By the logic you use most, if not all of them, could just as easily be described as “white”. > [@](#): > > Why the hell else would I use that descriptor? I don’t see where the confusion might be…it’s not like there’s a country called West Africa. How else might you interpret my use of the adjective? Surely you are aware of the construct: > > people from Africa: African > people from Asia: Asian > people from from Norway, Sweden, etc.: Scandinavian By the logic you put forth here you seem to imply that people of “African” descent are “black” and people of European descent are “white”. Well, since most, if not all of the men you listed are of European descent as well as of African descent doesn’t that mean they’re “white”. > [@](#): > > We also have the marathon dominated by people sharing East Africa ancestry. But, nah, race can’t be involved. If you think so you’re a racist. And lacrosse has been dominated by Upper-middle class whites, the shot put is dominated by Northern Europeans, and the Soviet Olympic Basketball teams were almost 100% Lithuanian. For that matter, IIRC, most of the people viewed as “white” in the NBA were born in Europe as opposed to America. Common sense tells people that culture not “genes” are why certain groups do better unless you think there was some gene that makes Lithuanians and Slavs better at basketball than Russians and American “whites” and whites better at Lacrosse than blacks. Anyway, beyond that, you’ve already pointed out that the sprints have been dominated for several decades, going back at least to Jesse Owens, by people of European descent(Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis etc.). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=12)