# Human races after all!?! --- What now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2002, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723 "2002-07-31T17:25:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/81 "2002-08-03T22:07:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I take it you’re retreating from this statement? Not at all. I am, however, tiring of your word games as you try to score points without actually having a point. Go declare yourself victorious and come back when you have a contribution to the discussion. The points made by the “no race crowd” are fairly clear and consistent. The questions that **IzzyR** have presented have a point. Yours, however, shift constantly. Given that you have never provided a single example of your initial “bait and switch” claim, I think I have simply wasted my time in your game. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/82 "2002-08-03T23:24:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **I am, however, tiring of your word games as you try to score points without actually having a point.** Look, you’re the one who (A) claimed I said things that I didn’t say and (B) claimed I didn’t say things that I did say. Who’s playing word games here? \*\* > [@](#): > > Go declare yourself victorious and come back when you have a contribution to the discussion. \*\* You just can’t bear to admit it when you’re wrong, can you? \*\* > [@](#): > > The questions that **IzzyR** have presented have a point. \*\* Agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > Yours, however, shift constantly.\*\* I think that my questions have been pretty reasonable. There was one point where I asked the same question four or five times. Is that what you find objectionable? Or was it some other questions? Which ones? \*\* > [@](#): > > Given that you have never provided a single example of your initial “bait and switch” claim, I think I have simply wasted my time in your game. \*\* You asked for an example a few hours ago, and I agreed to try to supply one. It will take me some time to wade through the old threads and come up with one. If I don’t provide an example, you should feel free to shout from the mountaintops that I didn’t back up a claim I made. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/83 "2002-08-04T03:06:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > Its numbers are comparable with what i’ve seen (thought Chimps have varied from 98% to 99% the same, with 98.7% as the more common figure i’ve seen lately, and some older articles listed mice at only 85%, but i couldn’t find anything newer. Thanks for the link. This would seem to mean that that there’s less to the statement that “all humans are 99% similar to all other humans” than meets the eye. If humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees, this would suggest that a 99% DNA similarity might still represent a substantial difference. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > > 1. My statement “of African origin” is not synonymous with “the Black Race.” Of course. But surely you will agree that the sociological group known as “Blacks” has a higher percentage of African origin than the other sociological groups. > [@](#): > > 1. I have said nothing about any genetic advantage. I am talking about variation about the mean. As likely to a disadvantage as it is to be an advantage. Understood. No dispute here. But if one were dwelling on the distribution of the upper percentiles - as we are - then your suggestion here offered a possible genetic explanation. > [@](#): > > 1. There is, to the best of my understanding, no evidence that there any particular alleles associated with superior athleticism. My logical construct is sheer speculation. I don’t understand what you mean to say with this. > [@](#): > > 1. I have artificially assumed that culture, opportunity, motivation, and population size are the same between population groups. Obviously this is not the case…But the environment is a powerful factor. And it more likely explains the predominance of the sociologic grouping called Blacks in American sports. I would disagree - been through this too at length in previous threads. But in any event, you would seem to be suggesting (or at least “speculating”) that it is possible that there is also a genetic factor at play - i.e. a broader genetic distribution with a larger upper (& lower) tail. That would contradict a definitive statement that this dominance was “only because of a culture bias”, as was made by Edwino (and many others). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > First of all, **Izzy** I’m impressed that you are deep enough indebted in this debate to go back and read my posts. I am honored and humbled, even if I seem to disagree with myself. Not sure if you are being facetious or not. But I will say, in all seriousness, that most or all that I know about race-genetics is what I’ve learned from the “anti-race” crowd in these debates - for which I am quite grateful. All the leading experts in the field on this board have been in this group, and I have never (IIRC) attempted to dispute any scientific issues with these experts. My disputes have primarily concerned the practical _implications_ of the facts laid out by the experts - which, being dependent on general logic rather than scientific knowledge, might be argued by anyone. In any event, my reaction here was the result of what strikes me as the sheer brazenness of your claim. The reasons for the dominance of Africans & African Americans in sports has been the primary focus of several debates, and the “anti-race” position has been quite clear and forceful that there was no genetic factor at play. The idea that someone from this camp could claim, regarding the possibly of a genetic factor that “We have never claimed otherwise” was rather striking. > [@](#): > > Certainly I am just a student, here and IRL, and my opinions have changed based on debates here and what I have learned IRL. There is bound to be some differences from what I stated 20 months ago and what I state today. Which is fine. I have no problem with someone changing their opinion - would that more people would do this more often. But to assert that no one has ever made a claim that has actually been made repeatedly is not in the category of a change of opinion. As for the rest of your post - I am not suggesting that anyone can identify the specific genetic factors that might make people of African descent more prone to outstanding achievement in the field - we are discussing the theoretical possiblility that such factors might exist. So the fact that no one knows of any such factor is not relevant, as far as I can see (I believe this was the subject of much of the grienspace/collounsbury debate, which I did not follow closely). The only thing I see in your response that seems to address the issue is your (possible) reformulation of your position to read “So, I conclude that in all probability, genetics does not play a very large factor”. Which would seem to be “resolving” the contradiction by saying that your previous assertions (& those of others) that the only factors were culture bias were only meant to say that “in all probability” the only factors were culture bias, while your agreement here with DSeid was referring to an outside possibility that was “in all probability” not actually true. If this is indeed your intention I can live with that as a resolution, though I would suggest that you be more clear about this in future postings on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/84 "2002-08-04T16:30:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > > * * * > > This seems consistent with what you said before, (and thanks for responding to me), but I notice that you didn’t mention “genetic distance.” Fine by me, but just so I know we are on the same page, can you confirm you agree with what I said before? > > “Ok, so you are saying that if you take two random individuals who share given traits in set “A,” their genetic distance, on average, will be little different from two individuals who do not share such traits?” > \*\* I think that “set A” is totally irrelevant to genetic distance. When we talk of a “black race,” this includes the most genetically diverse peoples on the planet. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the traits in “set A.” There is no causation between “set A” and genetic difference. Howzat? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/85 "2002-08-04T16:55:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Not sure if you are being facetious or not. No, I really respect that you are deep enough here to go wading through several dozen threads for such a statement. > [@](#): > > In any event, my reaction here was the result of what strikes me as the sheer brazenness of your claim. The reasons for the dominance of Africans & African Americans in sports has been the primary focus of several debates, and the “anti-race” position has been quite clear and forceful that there was no genetic factor at play. The idea that someone from this camp could claim, regarding the possibly of a genetic factor that “We have never claimed otherwise” was rather striking.Which is fine. I have no problem with someone changing their opinion - would that more people would do this more often. But to assert that no one has ever made a claim that has actually been made repeatedly is not in the category of a change of opinion. The fact of more genetic diversity does not imply a specific genetic advantage in the “black race.” While there may be some allele found at a higher rate in an isolated population, this does not make a whole race better at sports. More genetic diversity means that the bell curve is perhaps widened for all things – calculus, violin, juggling, eyesight, whatever. There would be more on the top of the bell curve and more on the bottom. Since we have an acquisition bias (who’s out there observing those who fall over their own feet when they run?) we are only seeing one tiny slice of a spectrum. In the black race as a whole, I don’t believe genetics plays any effect. In isolated populations (for instance some tribes in the East African mountains which are adept at running), I can’t count out an allele giving more endurance at altitude. Just like in some tribes we may see a height differential. This doesn’t make the black race “taller” or “faster” than any other race, it makes one particular subset “taller” or “faster.” East African distance running is an aberration IMHO. This wrangling gets away from the original point: “blacks are better at sports because of genetics.” There is no logical reason to make this statement. There appears to be no uniting genetics between those of African descent, and of course less amongst African-Americans. This would be necessary to say that there is a genetic contribution. Arguing that there are more outliers of the means in blacks is not arguing that blacks, as a whole, are better at sports. Arguing that the bell curve is wider around the same mean is not the same as arguing that it is a shifted bell curve. Certainly in the last 20 months, I have become more careful. I also qualified all of those “never made those statement claims” with IIRC and AFAIK. Obviously I didn’t remember correctly. Today, I wouldn’t be so brazen. But in the context of that debate, I really can’t say that what I was saying was completely wrong – we weren’t talking about East Africans and marathon running, We were talking about sprinting and basketball in African Americans and all types of things. But again, I wouldn’t be so brazen today. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2002, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/86 "2002-08-04T17:26:26Z")
Having argued with **Edwino** a great deal in the past on this athlete/race topic, and having learned a great deal from him, I must happily say that I concur (or do not disagree) with every word he has supplied in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/87 "2002-08-04T18:31:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\* > I think that “set A” is totally irrelevant to genetic distance. When we talk of a “black race,” this includes the most genetically diverse peoples on the planet. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the traits in “set A.” There is no causation between “set A” and genetic difference. Howzat? \*\* Not bad. To make things a little more specific, let me propose a hypothetical experiment: I choose two members of the “White” race at random - call them A and B - and measure their genetic distance. Then I choose a random member of the “Black” race - call him “C” - and measure the genetic distance between C and A. You believe that, on average, the first measurement will be little different from the second. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/88 "2002-08-04T19:19:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > No, I really respect that you are deep enough here to go wading through several dozen threads for such a statement. Well then I must say, in all honesty, that I did not actually wade through “several dozen” threads - I did a simple search for a race/genetics thread and pulled the first sports one that I remembered. > [@](#): > > The fact of more genetic diversity does not imply a specific genetic advantage in the “black race.” While there may be some allele found at a higher rate in an isolated population, this does not make a whole race better at sports. More genetic diversity means that the bell curve is perhaps widened for all things – calculus, violin, juggling, eyesight, whatever. There would be more on the top of the bell curve and more on the bottom. Exactly. This has been noted previously. So again, if the question being asked was why Blacks are disproportionately represented at the upper echelons of athletic acomplishment (as measured by membership in the NBA, MLB, & NFL), you would now say that it might just possibly be due (at least in part) to a genetic factor. Correct? ---
**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:** [August 4, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/89 "2002-08-04T20:40:33Z")
I’m going to shoot for some statements that most of us might agree to: There are population groups that have differing frequencies of various alleles. There are population groups that have a wider distribution of varient alleles than others. Some of these alleles might have phenotypic relevance. Knowing a population group helps predict whether or not an allele is present, which may have clinical relevance; testing for the alllele would tell for sure. Variation between individuals within seperate population groups typically dwarfs the variation between groups. “Race” is sociologic construct that has a poor, but non-zero correlation with these population groups. Use of that term obscures a more serious understand of the population genetics and confuses it with, well, a lotta crap. Still, even a poor correlation is better than none, so, sometimes, race has clinical utility. It is probable that certain population groups have a higher frequency of alleles that correlate with better than average performance in cetain tasks. And that a wider variation about the mean may translate into sigma outliers being overrepresented from that group. \*But there is no evidence that such occurs. \*There is no evidence that “Black Americans” share haplotypic diversity with those of the African population, and none that any of the African diversity correlates with phenotypic diversity involved in athletic performance. Social, cultural, and training factors can readily be shown to be significantly associated with performance on a wide variety of measures, including athletic performance. There is evidence that such environmental factors are significant, and no evidence that inter-population group genetic factors are. Thus while it is possible that genetic factors play a role in any groups over-representation at elite levels, it is likely less a significant factor , if a factor at all, than social ones. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/90 "2002-08-04T21:23:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\* > > IMHO. Yes. > > \*\* Ok, I have a few of those “counterexamples” I had mentioned. And in the interest of furthering this discussion, I will tell you that I ran a google search using words like “subspecies,” “clinal,” and “overlap.” Here is the link I got the examples from: [http://www.sibleyart.com/taxa\_1.htm](http://www.sibleyart.com/taxa_1.htm) White-rumped Leach’s Storm Petrel versus Dark-rumped Leach’s Storm Petrel; (and don’t guess rump color as a distinctive feature!!) Eastern Double-Crested Cormorant versus Western Double-Crested Cormorant; Bering Sea Pelagic Cormorant versus Southern Pelagic Cormorant. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/91 "2002-08-04T21:45:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\*I’m going to shoot for some statements that most of us might agree to: > > There are population groups that have differing frequencies of various alleles.\*\* Agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > There are population groups that have a wider distribution of varient alleles than others.\*\* Don’t know, but I have no reason to doubt you. \*\* > [@](#): > > Some of these alleles might have phenotypic relevance. \*\* Agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > Knowing a population group helps predict whether or not an allele is present, which may have clinical relevance; testing for the alllele would tell for sure.\*\* Agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > Variation between individuals within seperate population groups typically dwarfs the variation between groups.\*\* Sounds correct. > [@](#): > > **"Race" is sociologic construct that has a poor, but non-zero correlation with these population groups. Use of that term obscures a more serious understand of the population genetics and confuses it with, well, a lotta crap. Still, even a poor correlation is better than none, so, sometimes, race has clinical utility.** The word “poor” is a bit loaded, but I basically agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > It is probable that certain population groups have a higher frequency of alleles that correlate with better than average performance in cetain tasks. > \*\* Agree. \*\* > [@](#): > > And that a wider variation about the mean may translate into sigma outliers being overrepresented from that group.\*\* Statistically correct. Don’t know if it actually happens. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*But there is no evidence that such occurs. \* > \*\* That what occurs? \*\* > [@](#): > > There is no evidence that “Black Americans” share haplotypic diversity with those of the African population, and none that any of the African diversity correlates with phenotypic diversity involved in athletic performance.\*\* Don’t know. There’s certainly a relationship between race and athletic performance. “haplotypic diversity” is certainly a possible explanation. \*\* > [@](#): > > Social, cultural, and training factors can readily be shown to be significantly associated with performance on a wide variety of measures, including athletic performance. \*\* Possibly, depending on which sport is at issue; what the social, cultural, and training factors are; and which individuals or groups are at issue. \*\* > [@](#): > > There is evidence that such environmental factors are significant, and no evidence that inter-population group genetic factors are. \*\* Disagree. For example, cultural/environmental explanations for black dominance in short-distance running have been advanced many times on these boards. These explanations are pretty much unconvincing. This alone suggests that inter-population group genetic factors play a role. \*\* > [@](#): > > Thus while it is possible that genetic factors play a role in any groups over-representation at elite levels, it is likely less a significant factor, if a factor at all, than social ones.\*\* Disagree, for the same reason. \*\* > [@](#): > > Agreed? \*\* Too bad, ya had me until the last couple steps. Anyway, it’s nice that you’re not trying to use the “no race” argument to deny the possibility of “inter-population group genetic factors.” ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/92 "2002-08-05T04:29:17Z")
For the most part, I agree with **DSeid** as well. I don’t really like the term “population group” because genetic populations are quite well defined specifically by not having a lot of “genetic distance.” I would say that ethnic group would be more accurate. We are talking about the major subdivisions of humanity, which is mostly correlated with ethnicity. Although “ethnicity” may already be too loaded and too close to race. I especially agree with the paragraph which answers **IzzyR** ’s question to me: there is no evidence that African Americans share this touted genetic diversity of Africans in general. In fact, you wouldn’t expect it. Africans are diverse because East Africans, West Africans, Bantus, Khoisan, whatever, re all incredibly diverse, formed by the first population migrations of the newly evolved _Homo sapiens_. The slave trade brought over mostly from West African IIRC non-Bantu peoples. I think **tomndebb** knows more about this than I. So, I think you could expect that you wouldn’t see this genetic diversity. You would see just another group of people, not any different than anybody else. If someone does do haplotype analysis on African Americans (and here’s where we get into Cavalli-Sforza’s problems with the “PC” crowd), and does find this African-like 18 kb average haplotype size versus the 20 kb found in the rest of the world, then we may have something with which to start. I don’t think it is likely, though, due to the particular nature of the slave trade. So, no I don’t think it is likely that African Americans produce genetically gifted athletic “outliers” more than any other population. **lucwarm** : I will look up your answers. But, as I have stated in the previous thread, morphologic taxonomy is by no means an exact science, especially in these borderline cases. If two individuals are able to reproduce, there is no difference IMHO, even if they do not share an environment or have different appearance. If they cannot reproduce, the answer as to why should be obtainable genetically. If a taxonomist would like to tell me why I’m wrong, I would love to be educated. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/93 "2002-08-05T07:21:26Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _DSeid_ > > There are population groups that have a wider distribution of varient alleles than others > > _lucwarm_ > Don’t know, but I have no reason to doubt you. I can vouch for that, it’s what i do for a living. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There is no evidence that “Black Americans” share haplotypic diversity with those of the African population, and none that any of the African diversity correlates with phenotypic diversity involved in athletic performance. > > Don’t know. There’s certainly a relationship between race and athletic performance. “haplotypic diversity” is certainly a possible explanation. I’d like a cite for that race an athletic performance statement. Make sure it includes countering for social-economic status and culture. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There is evidence that such environmental factors are significant, and no evidence that inter-population group genetic factors are. > > Disagree. For example, cultural/environmental explanations for black dominance in short-distance running have been advanced many times on these boards. These explanations are pretty much unconvincing. This alone suggests that inter-population group genetic factors play a role. No offense, but if a few biologists and a few people who know some about genetics on an internet message board cannot convince all 22,000 members on one issue, it does not indicate genetics plays a role. > [@](#): > > _IzzyR_ > This would seem to mean that that there’s less to the statement that “all humans are 99% similar to all other humans” than meets the eye. If humans are 98% similar to chimpanzees, this would suggest that a 99% DNA similarity might still represent a substantial difference. Well, there are 3 billion some basepairs. 1% is 30 million. Most of the differences don’t do anything, they are in non-coding reagions. I can’t give you an actual percentage, tried looking, but remember any number you do find will be different as we figure out more areas of variation and what areas of the genome do. I’m tired and need to make spagetti, so i hope i didn’t miss something important. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/94 "2002-08-05T10:51:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by edwino \* > \*\*If two individuals are able to reproduce, there is no difference IMHO, even if they do not share an environment or have different appearance. \*\* Ok, so your position is that, generally speaking, distinctions between and among sub-species don’t exist as a “biological reality”? And I hope you didn’t miss my earlier question: > [@](#): > > To make things a little more specific, let me propose a hypothetical experiment: I choose two members of the “White” race at random - call them A and B - and measure their genetic distance. Then I choose a random member of the “Black” race - call him “C” - and measure the genetic distance between C and A. > > You believe that, on average, the first measurement will be little different from the second. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/95 "2002-08-05T11:12:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\* > > **I’d like a cite for that race an athletic performance statement. Make sure it includes countering for social-economic status and culture.** When I said that there was “certainly a relationship between race and athletic performance,” I wasn’t excluding the possibility of “social-economic status and culture” as an explanation. I’d dig up some cites, but I think that you misunderstood me. Agree? \*\* > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Disagree. For example, cultural/environmental explanations for black dominance in short-distance running have been advanced many times on these boards. These explanations are pretty much unconvincing. This alone suggests that inter-population group genetic factors play a role. > > No offense, but if a few biologists and a few people who know some about genetics on an internet message board cannot convince all 22,000 members on one issue, it does not indicate genetics plays a role.\*\* Again, I think you misunderstood me. I suppose what I said could have been clearer. I’ll give it another shot: The cultural/environmental/socio-economic explanations I have seen for black dominance in short-distance running do not logically account for 100% of the dramatic results that everyone has seen over the years. This suggests that other factors, i.e. genetic differences, are at work too. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/96 "2002-08-05T13:10:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > Social, cultural, and training factors can readily be shown to be significantly associated with performance on a wide variety of measures, including athletic performance. > > There is evidence that such environmental factors are significant, and no evidence that inter-population group genetic factors are. Thus while it is possible that genetic factors play a role in any groups over-representation at elite levels, it is likely less a significant factor , if a factor at all, than social ones. I don’t know enough about worldwide sports, culture or sociology to have a firm opinion with regards to many of the sports being discussed (e.g. running). But I do feel that I am familiar enough with American sports, culture, and sociology to have an opinion here, regarding the likelihood that sociological/cultural factors (at least the ones that I’ve seen discussed) could account for the distribution by “race” in the three major US sports. And I don’t think it is even remotely possible. At most they could be some small factor - nothing approaching a factor strong enough to account for the disparity that exists. So I tend to think that some genetic factor must be involved. Possibly the one you describe, possibly some other factor (e.g. disproportionate presence of genetically advantaged sub-populations, impact of slavery survival etc.). (As an aside, I would note that the notion that environmental/cultural/sociological factors favor AA athletes is probably also speculative - for some reason people seem more eager to accept speculation in this area than in the genetic). With regards to intelligence I would agree with you, that the evidence for differences is very weak, due to factors such as you describe. So my position there would be theoretical. Possible differences in body size/proportion would be somewhere in between. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/97 "2002-08-05T20:03:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > Ok, so your position is that, generally speaking, distinctions between and among sub-species don’t exist as a “biological reality”? This is a question of some controversy in the fields of systematic biology and taxonomy ( _strictly speaking taxonomy is the science of naming and distinguishing different groups of organisms, an ‘Alpha-level Taxonomist’ is one that describes species - systematics is the study of the evolutionary relationships between different groups - the two fields are obviously closely related but are not synonmous - one can be a taxonomist without being a systematist and vice versa and many are just one or the other, though that is becoming less common_ ). But increasingly the consensus is inclining towards, no, they are not biologically _significant_ categories. The reason for this is that very imprecision. The category of subspecies is still very common, but it more often it is just used as a shorthand for ‘morph’ or ‘population’ now. This is based on more modern definitions of species and systematic analysis. Generally speaking most authorities now agree that taxonomic categories should by definition include evolutionary information ( i.e. they shouldn’t just be gross descriptions of morphology with no thought to evolutionary relationships ). Further there is also wide agreement that the species should by definition be the basal group - i.e. as per one definition, “a single lineage of ancestor-decendant populations of organisms which maintains its identity from other such lineages [in space and time] and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate”. Consequently what were formally considered isolated subspecies, because that had a close morphological and genetic affinnity to more widely distributed species, are now being elevated to full species status because there is no longer continuous gene flow with that more widely distributed group ( i.e. Coluber constrictor mormon to Coluber mormon ). Whereas other groups have been synonomized. So to reiterate, subspecies are still being named ( though some now poo-poo that practice altogether ), but they are now largely viewed as having no distinct evolutionary status. What ‘reality’ they have is just as a description of a particular color phase or a geographic population. Which would be fine for humans, if everybody treated the term race that cavalierly. But for reasons of historical baggage, they don’t. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/98 "2002-08-05T20:20:23Z")
Just to add to the previous post - There is no universal definition of what a subspecies is and no controversy over the topic. There is also no universal defintion of a _species_ ;), but _there is_ controversy over that and generally you had better have a consistent set of accepted criteria to back yourself up if you publish a new peer-reviewed species description. Whereas nobody generally cares as much about subspecies descriptions ( exception to follow ) - You can use virtually any criteria you like. Now subspecies can be formally listed as legally ‘Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’, like the local San Francisco Garter Snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ). Does this imply ‘biological reality’? Well, sorta. One can think of it as preserving the genetic diversity of a more widely distributed species, by preserving a particular peculiar ( in this case stunning ) geographically distinct morph. However, the designation subspecies, though it is used legally, could just as easily be substituted with ‘population’ and that same argument would hold. It is a bit of a legal fiction, but then the concept of ‘Endangered Species’ can be to some extent as well, as really the goal is more often to use that status to preserve endangered habitat, rather than just a single species. - Tamerlane ---
**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:** [August 5, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/99 "2002-08-05T23:30:17Z")
Forget human races. The concept of various human species is now being challenged. Read about anthropologist Alan Thorne’s ideas about human evolution in this month’s _ **Discover** _ ---
**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:** [August 6, 2002, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723/100 "2002-08-06T05:12:50Z")
Well at least we’ve clarified where the disagreements are. “Race” is a fuzzier term than others that are availble to evaluate the issues of scientific interest and is therefore best avoided and with it all the baggage that the term carries with it. We agree that there is no evidence that genetics is a significant factor influencing the predominance of any particular group in certain sports, agree that genetic mechanisms can be speculatively hypothesized, and disagree about how much influence sociocultural factors exert. Okay then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-races-after-all-what-now/121723.md?page=6)