# Genetic basis of race uncovered. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2002, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001 "2002-07-02T09:06:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/41 "2002-07-03T15:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > As for your question What ‘distinct’ goddamned “range” do Native Americans have?”, that article suggests anything east and south of the Bering straight. Distinctly bordered by the oceans that define the continent of North America. While I might have been willing to believe your assertion that Inuit form a distinct population, lacking this gene, before your outburst I m less inclined to do so now. The published article suggests that Inuit do have this gene, since they too migrated across the Bering Straight. Do you have anything to refute this? The same goes for your assertion that NW Native Americans do not carry this gene. That is in direct contradiction to what has been published. Blah blah blah. See citations above, you can follow the links if that isn’t too challenging, to delve deeper into the issue. > [@](#): > > You then descend into personal abuse with “As for ‘most genetically unique’ this is just plain stupidity speaking. Where does this little gem derive from?” To answer your question, it comes form the clear statement in that article that most native Americans carry this gene, and that no other group on the planet does. That makes most Native Americans genetically unique. That is not stupidity speaking. It is the author o that article being paraphrased. Paraphrasing by someone who (a) doesn’t know gene from allele, (b) is unable or unwilling to comprehend the details in the article contradictory to a priori assumption of race © clearly doesn’t have the background to know what would be ‘genetically unique’ (d) did not understand the article in gross - leads to error. > [@](#): > > While I appreciate you may have access to the latest scientific journals, we mortals do not. I know nothing about the Atlantic or its charter. I stumbled across the article and found it interesting. I was hoping that someone on these boards could help me interpret the scientific merit of what is published. I was hoping these boards might be able o assists in elimination some ignorance on my part. Instead I have been abused and defamed for asking a genuine question. Cry me a river. You can access the bloody stuff online. As you seem to have read enough in the past to call me by name, then you should have run into the very same materials I have cited in the past. > [@](#): > > I have seen nothing to suggest that that article is not 100% correct. That there is a gene found in the majority of Native Americans not found in any other race. Native American is not a race. The article is a popular recounting and indeed the specific allele is found, per the citations above, ex-America in Siberia. > [@](#): > > To those who object to my usage of the term miscegenation, tough. I care little if I has negative historical connotations or if it was used by Adolf Hitler. That’s just PC rubbish. I use the term as defined by my dictionary: The interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds. No suggestion that such interbreeding is good, bad indifferent or nobodies damn business. Just that it occurs. If we accept that races can exists then miscegenation is the most precise term to use for this process. If some people find it offensive that’s unfortunate. It’s an English word that describes a process and nothing more. There is no judgment or denigration of any person or group involved and so it can’t be offensive. I can only assume that those who find the word ‘miscegenation’ offensive in fact find the thought of such a process offensive. And that offends me. Perhaps you should bloody well stop assuming and you should bloody well start learning. Your presumption that races exist is unfounded, the use of such a term suggestive. > [@](#): > > I don’t post much on these boards as it is. I have nothing much to add. But this type of reaction hardly encourages me to post any more frequently. I know this is no great loss, but perhaps some of you should consider the effect this sort of reaction to genuine questions has on other lurkers. I know there a lot of them, and many of them may even be able to fight some of your own ignorance. Boo bloody hoo. At least you got some parts right. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/42 "2002-07-03T15:39:04Z")
Two simple scenarios, **Blake,** to demonstrate that one mutated chromosome does not a “race” make. Scenario #1: Two boys grow up in the same home on a Lakota Souix reservation in South Dakota. The boys are half-brothers, with two different dads, both of whom are Lakota Souix tribe members. One of these boys carries the mutated Y chromosome, while the other one doesn’t. Are these half-brothers of the same race? Scenario #2: I go and get a genetic analysis. It turns out that I carry the mutated Y chromosome, indicating that, at some point in my past, a carrier boinked some chick on my dad’s side of my family tree. Me, I’m a blond-blue Irish-German lad. Does the presence of the mutated Y chromosome make me a member of the Native American “race”? Sua ---
**Author:** ![JohnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/848f3c/32.png) [@JohnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnM)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/43 "2002-07-03T18:39:03Z")
I didn’t want to hijack the discussion, so I started a new thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123745) concerning the use of neutral, but emotionally charged, words like miscegenation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/44 "2002-07-04T01:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > \*\*Forgot to add - “Races” of animals often aren’t very distinct at all - That’s why many systematists don’t like the concept anymore. \*\* Did biologists ever really use the term _race_ to describe sets of animals within a species? Frankly, ignoring the human race, a horse race always suggested a running contest to me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/45 "2002-07-04T02:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tamerlane \* > \*\*Forgot to add - “Races” of animals often aren’t very distinct at all - That’s why many systematists don’t like the concept anymore. \*\* Did biologists ever really use the term _race_ to describe sets of animals within a species? Frankly, ignoring the human race, a horse race always suggested a running contest to me. ---
**Author:** ![mipsman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mipsman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mipsman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/46 "2002-07-04T04:07:12Z")
There was another genetic marker in Native Americans that made the news last year. This marker is also common in Southeast Asia but not Northeast Asia. This caused some people to postulate a Rube Goldbergish migation from SE Asia to North America. Given the Han Chinese are an intrusive group (sorry, can’t remember the cite, not my area) and that SE Asia has numerous linguistic and physical distinct relict populations, a simple explanation is that there was a distinct population in NE Asia 12,000 years ago of which a group crossed over Beringia. The ones who were left were expelled or migrated to the south. Obviously, it would require hard archaelogic evidence in terms of a migrating front of artifacts to prove this. But, outside of some sort of Lamarckianism, the evidence points to a distinct population, at least 12,000 years ago. What does “tout croyant” mean? Is this Coll’s long overdue restraint in expletive laden retorts? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/47 "2002-07-04T04:25:27Z")
Lurking’s where it’s at. Even though I have a BS in Chemistry, I have enough common sense to defer to posters who obviously know more than I. If I ever attempt to post major opinions which can’t be supported by facts, please slap me upside the head. This thread is, by far, the best and most definitive on all of the “race” threads. Thanks, guys. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/48 "2002-07-04T06:14:37Z")
From _Science_ Mar 02 2001 > [@](#): > > The first Americans. An intermediate time scale between the most recent and the most ancient human dispersal events, along with variable levels of population structure and diversity, characterizes the groups that contributed to the peopling of the Americas. Many experts expected that this problem would be the first big human dispersal issue to be solved conclusively with molecular data, but that optimism has not been borne out. The exact timing and the number of waves of immigrants that shaped population and linguistic diversity of indigenous people in the Americas are still controversial. Mitochrondrial DNA data showing four major haplogroups were alternately interpreted to favor one recent, continuous, and sustained immigration; multiple movements separated by thousands of years that corresponded to different language families immigrating in; or a single wave starting 43,000 yr B.P. (44). > > Only one thing is certain, and that is the “Clovis First” archaeological model of a late entry of migrants into North America is unsupported by the bulk of new archaeological and genetic evidence, and coastal routes of expansion have become more popular among archaeologists (45). Some ancient American skeletons additionally display puzzling morphological features, most notably Kennewick Man from the Pacific Northwest (~9500 years old) and the Spirit Cave Mummy from North America’s Great Basin (~10,600 years old). Kennewick, in one cranial reconstruction (46), has been closely linked to the Ainu of northern Japan, rather than to Mongolians, Native Americans, or Siberians. As new markers, such as additional X group haplotypes, Alu insertion sequences, and Y polymorphisms, are identified and tracked, we will likely have greater insight into this problem as well as resolve the issue of possible direct but limited contact between coastal Native American populations and Pacific islanders. > > The Native American populations remain important from a population genetic perspective because they unite the concepts of genetic population bottlenecks, geographic isolation of founder populations, and linguistic diversification, as first noted in the early 1970s (16). And now for my two hijacks- 1. Implied in this review is that the Bering strait land bridge migration hypothesis is falling out of favor. Among the other hypotheses I’ve read about (I’d have to dig through my piles to find the cites though) is coastal migration by boats along the polar ice cap, and an early wave of migration that got all the way South (or perhaps even originated from Southern Pacific Islander routes) and was then replaced (?killed off?) by a later migration from the North. My only point is that complete understanding of these migratory patterns will not come from some simplistic imposition of a race concept, but from a willingness to integrate convergent lines of evidence about populations … about how males traveled and settled independent of women of their site of origin, how males traveled and abducted women and brought them back with them, about how males traveled and raped as they went, about how women went to “other” populations independent of males, about how populations supplanted each other by war and murder and by absorption, and about how many waves of migration may or may not occur. My question to the eminently irritable but informative **Collounsbury** and others, is how do you read the genetic data currently available visavis alternative migratory patterns becoming more accepted by the archeologic crowd? 2. Exactly _why_ does this subject stir up such strong reactions? Well, **Coll** just bloody well acts like that sometimes, but many others have responded strongly to this concept on multiple threads past and present. Just because some people persist in attempting to impose a concept that may have sociologic relevance and has the appeal of matching first impressions, onto biologic data despite the fact that it has been well explained on multiple occassions that the desciption of “races” just does not do justice to the complexity of the genetic data? Or is it for some other reason than frustration with persitent ignorance? And why do some hang onto trying to force this particular concept onto genetic data that it does not have the flexibility to well explain? Are other agendas at work form either side of the discussion? (BTW PNAS-online requires a subscription. I tried, but I’ll hold onto my $5 for now for single article access) ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2002, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/49 "2002-07-04T15:07:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\* > 2) Exactly _why_ does this subject stir up such strong reactions? Well, **Coll** just bloody well acts like that sometimes, but many others have responded strongly to this concept on multiple threads past and present. Just because some people persist in attempting to impose a concept that may have sociologic relevance and has the appeal of matching first impressions, onto biologic data despite the fact that it has been well explained on multiple occassions that the desciption of “races” just does not do justice to the complexity of the genetic data? Or is it for some other reason than frustration with persitent ignorance? \*\* Like many people, I once believed in biologically distinct human races. I rejected this belief when I encountered the current scientific evidence on the subject and realized that the data did not back up my previously held belief. This was not a painful or difficult process, as I had no particular emotional investment in this false belief. It was just something I’d been wrong about, partially from youthful ignorance and partially from being exposed to the old “Five Races” biological theory. I can well understand that many people may still be wrong in the same way that I was once wrong. But if they continue to cling to belief in biologically distinct races despite having been exposed to the current scientific evidence, then they are not merely ignorant or misinformed. They must have some desire to believe in biologically distinct races despite all evidence to the contrary. Frankly, I find that creepy, not least of all because I can think of precious few reasons other than good old-fashioned racism why anyone would have such a desire. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/50 "2002-07-05T04:38:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > By the way, get the terminology right, alleles, not genes. …However, it would be rather more encouraging if you could get the basic terminology right. Allele. Not gene. We all gots the same complement of genes. Learn the vocabulary. It’s the first step to having a glimmer of understanding…Alleles. Get it right. Alleles. Look it up. …Paraphrasing by someone who > (a) doesn’t know gene from allele, … **Blake** , several on-line dictionaries define allele as an alternative form of a gene at a given locus. An allele is still a gene, which is why no one else deemed it important enough to berate you on it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/51 "2002-07-05T05:20:34Z")
While one may wish that **Col** had expressed himself using more tact (or one may not–I do not seek to impose a specific reaction on any poster to any other poster), his point distinguishing alleles from genes was pertinent to this discussion. As noted in the Googled html version of the [ACCLIMATION vs ADAPTATION](http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:G1dA3Fr41nsC:www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/courses/phys/adapt.pdf+genes+vs+alleles&hl=en&ie=UTF-8%5B/url) page of www.biol.sc.edu/ (available as the original pdf at [http://www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/courses/phys/adapt.pdf](http://www.biol.sc.edu/~vogt/courses/phys/adapt.pdf) ), > [@](#): > > **Adaptation is evolution.** Adaptation involves the evolutionary selection of gene **alleles**. Every individual of a population (same species) has the same **genes** , but each gene may be represented in the population by different versions ( **alleles** ). If the activity of a biochemical process is particularly sensitive to environmental conditions, then the specific properties of the proteins of that process might be important. A higher affinity of O2 might to Hb might be good under some environmental condition but not so good under other environmental conditions, where “good” relates to overall survivability and mating success (passing on the **genes** ). A gene is represented by multiple **alleles** (versions) among a population. The environment changes. Individuals with one specific allele end up predominating in the mating rituals and that representation of that allele in the next generation increases (or maybe decreases). **Adaptation refers to specific alleles.** So, while it is possible to carry on this conversation using only the term _gene_, the explicit reference to _alleles_ more specifically describes the situation in that particular part of the discussion. In other words, while it is true that an allele is a gene, it is in alleles that one finds differences among humans, because all humans have the _same genes_ while there are a wide number of _different alleles_ (variants) to express those genes. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Go\_alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_alien)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/52 "2002-07-05T11:25:23Z")
**Collounsbury** , Thanks for an excellent example of fighting ignorance. Your post is pertinent not only to the specific OP but more generally in showing the value of how a bit of research can expand, and even refute, poorly written articles in the press. Keep up the good work and watch the blood pressure.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/53 "2002-07-05T14:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > _collunsbury_ > We all gots the same complement of genes. Learn the vocabulary. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > In other words, while it is true that an allele is a gene, it is in alleles that one finds differences among humans, because all humans have the _same genes_ while there are a wide number of _different alleles_ (variants) to express those genes. Well, not to dispute your point [bv]tomndebb\*\*, but lets go to the American Academy of Family Physicians website [http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/865ph.html](http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020301/865ph.html) where we have: > [@](#): > > Hereditary hemochromatosis is a health problem that is passed from parents to children. It is inherited by passing on the HFE gene. The HFE gene makes your body store too much iron. Note that the term gene not allele was used. Now is the Academy deserving of \*\*Collounsbury’s ['b] scorn, or should **Collounsbury** be scorned for suggesting that we all have the same complement of genes? Actually, it is a fact that we all do not have the same number of genes. Many of us have Downs Syndrome which involves extra genes as I recall. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Go\_alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_alien)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/54 "2002-07-05T15:28:08Z")
The general public knows the word gene. It doesn’t know the word allele, so gene is used when allele is meant. The distinction is very clear when used correctly - a human being has a standard set of genes (chromosomal irregularities not withstanding), usually two of each (except the X and Y chromosomes in men) but the actual DNA code in place (the locus, the location on the chromosome) for the gene is one of many alleles in the population. So a given locus can only have one allele. A human can have two different alleles (one on each of the paired chromosomes). Typically, only one is expressed (dominant). When the AAFP says “gene for Alien Syndrome found” it means one or both of two things: The locus of the gene has been found on a given chromosome and/or the allele which, when expressed, causes the syndrome has been identified. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/55 "2002-07-05T15:34:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Note that the term gene not allele was used. Now is the Academy deserving of \*\*Collounsbury’s \*\* scorn, or should **Collounsbury** be scorned for suggesting that we all have the same complement of genes? Well, I don’t know that anyone–including or especially **Blake** –is deserving of **Col** ’s scorn. I have on a couple of occasions suggested that **Col** could tone down his replies (and I am not in the habit of commenting on other posters’ styles). I will note that the article cited used rather casual language, perhaps understandable in light of their intent to present the information to a less literate audience without conducting vocabulary lessons. In fact, it is not “the HFE gene” that causes Hemochromatosis in the sense that having the HFE gene does not, in and of itself, cause one to suffer Hemochromatosis: > [@](#): > > What causes hemochromatosis? > > - Hemochromatosis is a genetic disease: Hemochromatosis occurs when there are abnormalities (mutations) in an individual’s DNA. > - DNA is the ‘blueprint’ for life, the set of instructions carried in the nucleus of every cell of the body (except red blood cells). > - A discrete unit of instruction contained in the DNA is called a **gene**. Most genes encode (carry information necessary for the synthesis of) proteins. Proteins, in turn, perform essential life functions. > - Each gene is present in 2 copies: one _copy_ (or **allele** ) inherited from the mother and one _copy_ inherited from the father. > - Hemochromatosis occurs if a child has mutations in both _copies_ ( **alleles** ) of a particular gene, the HFE **gene**. > - A child can inherit 2 defective _copies_ of the HFE **gene** if: > [ul][li]Both parents are carriers: Each parent has one normal **allele** of the HFE **gene** and one defective **allele**. [/li][li]Both parents have hemochromatosis. [/li][li]One parent has hemochromatosis and one parent is a carrier.[/ul] [/li]- Note: Carriers do not have hemochromatosis because the normal _copy_ of the HFE **gene** produces normal HFE protein. In genetic terms, the normal **allele** of the **gene** is dominant and hemochromatosis is recessive. (All emphasis mine, from [The Healthy Lifestyle Center of the Jewish Hospital Healthcare Services](http://jhhs.client.web-health.com/web-health/topics/GeneralHealth/generalhealthsub/generalhealth/gastrointestinal/hemo.html) site. While **Col** ’s presentation was harsh, it remains that a clear understanding of the distinction between the use of the words **gene** and **allele** do have a point in this discussion. (Regarding the Down Syndrome comment: would it be your suggestion that sufferers of Thalidomide not be called human? Or that we never say that “humans have two arms”? Barring trauma or mutation, humans “have” the same numbers of limbs and genes.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/56 "2002-07-05T18:53:17Z")
Just butting in to hand out kudo’s. Seldom have I seen such a sound thrashing delivered to an unworthy concept! It would appear that alleles well! (I’m sorry, really, I am, I just can’t help myself sometimes…) Note to The Collounsbury: none here holds you in better esteem than myself. But, heavens, man, did you quit smoking? Suddenly renounce crack? Your friends, and we are Legion, are unanimous in dismay at your recent descent into prickly curmudgeonhood. Pray return at once or you will be sorely missed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/57 "2002-07-06T00:54:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > > While **Col** ’s presentation was harsh, it remains that a clear understanding of the distinction between the use of the words **gene** and **allele** do have a point in this discussion. That has not been disputed > [@](#): > > (Regarding the Down Syndrome comment: would it be your suggestion that sufferers of Thalidomide not be called human? What a horrible suggestion. I said “some of us” have extra genes. There is no basis for your implication. > [@](#): > > Or that we never say that “humans have two arms”? If we say all humans have two arms, then we are in error. My point is after all, if we are being picky enough to cast aspersions on someone’s credibility because he isn’t specific enough regarding terminology, then criticism for not being rigorously correct is warrantred as well. We all can play this childish game. ---
**Author:** ![Osakadave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/f07891/32.png) [@Osakadave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osakadave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/58 "2002-07-06T01:17:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > \*\* > > Did biologists ever really use the term _race_ to describe sets of animals within a species? Frankly, ignoring the human race, a horse race always suggested a running contest to me. \*\* I don&t know how common it was, but I know I have seen #race@ used in birding taxonomies. ---
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/59 "2002-07-06T01:20:46Z")
Human populations have some genetic differences. I’ll leave the details to the experts. The problem is applying false analogies (cats/wildcats, wolves/dogs) to these human differences. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001/60 "2002-07-06T03:13:45Z")
One more point. On more than several dozen occasions, the claim of greater genetic diversity among Africans has been touted on the SDMB. Considering that we all have the same full complement of genes, (exceptions as previously discussed), shouldn’t we be claiming that Africans are more _allelicly_ diverse? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/genetic-basis-of-race-uncovered/117001.md?page=4)