# If evolution is not true why are there different races. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537 "2006-12-17T20:08:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/21 "2006-12-18T03:36:21Z")
Keeping this in perspective, the word “race” has been used to mean everything from humanity as a whole to a national gene-pool to a particular **family.** If you read in a Thackeray novel about “those of ancient race,” it means an elite family that has been recognized as such and borne the same name for a long time. And when Barry Lyndon says it was not destined that he should leave any of his “race” behind, it means that he would be survived by no children of his body. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/22 "2006-12-18T03:55:48Z")
If you can still find it for sale or if they have a copy at your library, [The Aryan Myth](http://www.amazon.com/Aryan-Myth-History-Racist-Nationalistic/dp/0760700346/sr=1-2/qid=1166412985/ref=sr_1_2/102-8475219-1341723?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Leon Poliakoy is a good book on the subject of European racism and anti-Semitism from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. It’s interesting (in an awful way) that theories on the so-called “inferiority” of some races and nationalities seemed to become more prominent as time advanced. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/23 "2006-12-18T04:30:12Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] Can we please see some evidence that such groups ever did exist? [/QUOTE] Here’s Richard Dawkins on the subject, writing in _The Ancestor’s Tale_. > [@](#): > > It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation of the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race compenent is a very small fraction of the total… What is not correct is the inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept. > > …suppose we took standard full-face photographs of 20 randomly-chosen natives of each of the following countries: Japan, Uganda, Iceland, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and Egypt. If we presented all 120 people with all 120 photographs, my guess is that every single one of them would achieve 100 percent success in sorting them into 6 different categories. What is more, if we told them the names of the countries involved, all 120 subjects, if reasonably well educated, would correctly assign all photographs to the correct country. > > …The portion of the total variation in the human species that falls into the racial partition of variation is, indeed, low. But because the between-race variation, however low a percentage of the total, is _correlated_, it is informative in ways that could surely be demonstrated by measuring the inter-observer concordance of judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/24 "2006-12-18T04:45:48Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] I can certainly present evidence that all human groups have been mixing since our species first evolved. [/QUOTE] All? Would you include, for example, the residents of Tasmania during the period of 12,000 to 250 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/25 "2006-12-18T04:58:29Z")
It’s my understanding that there are distinct genetic markers that are common to certain populations. However, the groups that can be assigned in this way show very little overlap with traditional concepts of racial groups. Additionally, these commonalities within populations are insignificant compared to the amount of variation present. Let me dig up a specific paper I remember reading… Here we go. [Genetic Structure of Human Populations](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5602/2381). Here’s the abstract (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. **Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations.** General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies. That pretty much is what **tomndebb** stated earlier. I think that **sapo** isn’t saying anything drastically different from this, though he may be overstating the similarities within populations. He’s just using “race” to mean “related group”, whereas scientists try to avoid such a loaded term. While I’m at it, I might as well toss out some related things I came across while searching for the above paper. [Here’s](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/427888) a paper that identifies clusters of markers that actually do correspond to current American concepts of race/ethnicity. Still, it doesn’t say anything about the significance of these different markers, and these markers ([microsatellites](http://www.bio.davidson.edu/COURSES/genomics/method/microsatellite.html)) are more indicative of historical genetic drift than anything else since they’re typically in regions of “junk” DNA. [Here’s](http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/1/177?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=pena&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT) a paper that, at least in Brazil, skin color is a pretty useless predictor of geographical ancestry (or what “race” a person belongs to). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/26 "2006-12-18T06:52:19Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] Consider the Incas in central south america and the Massai in Africa. [/QUOTE] OK. Let’s consider them. Are Incas exactly equal to Iroquois or Taino? Are Massai readily recognized as close kin of the Khoi-San? Using the Linnaean groups of four races or the Blumenbach grouping into five categories or teh popular “three races” concept that made it into American Social Studies books from the 1890s through the 1980s, Iroquois, Taino, and Inca are one group and Khoi-San, Massai, and pygmies are one group. (and the “three races” method places the Iroquois, Taino, and Inca into the same group as the verious ethnic groups of China, Japan, and Polynesia). Does that system make any sense? If you then say “Well, there are a lot more than three or five races,” where do you stop? How many races are there? And if you look at peoples in “crossroads” locales, do you arbitrarily assign them to one of the groups? or do you dismiss them as “mixtures.” (It does not take much searching to find rather bitter fights among race-conscious people as to whether the ancient Egyptians were black, white, or some other category.) Population works because we can, indeed, identify coherent groups (while recognizing that at the borders of various groups there has been so much interfertility that large numbers of peoples near those borders have too many mixed traits to allow easy categorization). It is not so much a matter that the word race is offensive as that it conveys errors. The word has a 250 year old tradition in English of identifying a “major segment” of humanity, but there are no major segments of humainty that can be placed into racial categories without doing a lot of artificial shoehorning. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/27 "2006-12-18T10:06:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] an example of a human race? The only one I can think of from the top of my head with minimal chance of choosing a “super-race” or a “sub-race” would be the australian aboriginals. [/quote] So Australian Aborigines are race, distinct from all other peoples? Can you explain how that can be so when there has been constant admixture with New Guinenas ever since Meganesia was colonised. What features, genetic or physical, enable you to distinguish between a Papuan and an Australian? And how did these features develop despite constant interbreeding? And if you can’t tell us what features you use to define your race then how do you know that it is a race? Certainly all the authors I have ever read have lump Australians and at least some Papuans into a single Australoid. Why do you think they are wring, and how did you make your distinction? > [@](#): > > Consider the Incas in central south america and the Massai in Africa. There are clearly two groups with their respective sets of characteristics that are consistently represented in their successive generations disregarding the individual differences inside each group. Is that true though? Can you tell us what sets of characteristics consistently represent the Inca and set them apart form the Iroquois? Or what characteristics consistently represent the Masai as distinct from the Zulu? > [@](#): > > Inca and Inca reproduce and you always get Inca, there is no going around it. If that is so then you will be able to tell us how we would know that an Inca and an Inca _haven’t_ produced an Iroquois. If you can’t do that then how can you claim that they always produce Inca? > [@](#): > > Human groups have been mixing very little since the appearance of the human species. I’ve already asked for a reference for this claim and you are apparently unable to provide it. As such we can safely assume that you are just making shit up. > [@](#): > > It is only in the last century or two that we have started moving along enough to mix with other groups. Really? So Lapitans/Polynesians never colonised New Guinea 5, 00 years ago and displaced the native Australoids? And the Australoid populations of Viet Nam aren’t island populations, they are in fact Mongoloids that just happen to look Australoid? And Austronesians never colonised Madagascar and intermingled with East Africans? This is all very fascinating and I look forward to seeing your evidence that all those things never happened. [qupte]The genetical isolation was never perfect, of course. This is why we don’t have speciation, but we have been mostly living in “islands” for most of the history of our species. [/QUOTE] When people start using cromulent words like “genetical” I start wanting to see evidence for their extraordinary claims. Do you in fact have any evidence, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? [QUOTE=Xema] Here’s Richard Dawkins on the subject, writing in _The Ancestor’s Tale_. [/QUOTE] And that demonstrates that isolated human races existed how? > [@](#): > > All? Would you include, for example, the residents of Tasmania during the period of 12,000 to 250 years ago? No and I wouldn’t include the people of Pitcairn Island for the period from 200 – 250 years ago either. There have always been tiny isolated populations, but unless your point is that such tiny populations constitute races then I fail to see exactly point you are attempting to make. [QUOTE=lazybratsche] think that **sapo** isn’t saying anything drastically different from this, though he may be overstating the similarities within populations. He’s just using “race” to mean “related group”, whereas scientists try to avoid such a loaded term. [/quote] Well he is saying something drastically different. He is saying Australian Aborigines or even Inca are physically and genetically distinct from New Guinean Australoids or Iroquois. That is radically different from simply pointing out that certain clusters correspond to broad geographic regions. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/28 "2006-12-18T10:50:55Z")
Wait…So this ISN’T about Nascar? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/29 "2006-12-18T12:39:32Z")
ok, guys. Before you get too worked up, let us define race. If you say such and such is not a race, what is a race that is not a species and not a population. Consistently throughout my posts I have defined race as a population that shares a combo of traits that sets them apart from other populations. Nothing more than that. I am not an anthropologist and I am claiming no expertise in distinguishing between the Irosomethings, the Tainos and the Incas. That’s why I chose two groups obviously different from each other. I was comparing Inca to Massai because a 6-year old in a hurry could tell them apart (as per Xema’s quote). Of course they all share a common ancestor at some recent past, of course they all move, of course there has been some “interbreeding”. But if you are going to argue that 200 years ago an Inca was more likely to have children with another Inca than with a Massai, then well, I think I am the one who can ask for evidence to support such a claim. Don’t get too hung up on the word “race” change it to whatever you want (and certainly don’t claim that I am proposing they are isolated races as I have never used the word). I do not know if the word “population” is the correct one either. Can we have a definition of it too? Most importantly, do not assume that these different “races” can somehow be ranked from better to worse. Go to a dog show and ask which is the better breed. Mu. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/30 "2006-12-18T13:17:43Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] But if you are going to argue that 200 years ago an Inca was more likely to have children with another Inca than with a Massai, then well, I think I am the one who can ask for evidence to support such a claim. [/QUOTE] I think you may be missing a “not” in there, somewhere, unless you are saying that in 1807 there was some great likelihood of people from Western South America encountering people from Southeastern Africa to intermarry. 😛 > [@Sapo](#): > > Before you get too worked up, let us define race. We asked you first. 🙂 > [@Sapo](#): > > Consistently throughout my posts I have defined race as a population that shares a combo of traits that sets them apart from other populations. Nothing more than that. Yes. but you have not provided any concrete examples of what “traits” you believe are both shared (within a group) and exclusive to that group. You have also failed to explain how large or small a group might be while continuing to bear the nomenclature “race.” Those are the points to which we are objecting. If used as originally expressed in scientific literature, there were no more than three to five races. You have used examples of much smaller groups. What justifies calling the Maasai a “race” that distinguishes them from their neighbors? How likely is it that you could actually identify a Maasai as distinct from a Samburu at ten paces? How likely is it that you could distinguish a Maasai from Zulu? How large (sharing fewer and fewer traits) or small (to the point of identifying individual families) may a group be and still be recognized as a race? > [@Sapo](#): > > I do not know if the word “population” is the correct one either. Population is the word used by people doing actual research and it varies–and must be identified by the author–for each paper that is published. In this way, scientists avoid getting caught up in the errors associated with the original use of the word race while avoiding the error of simply substituting one misleading word for another. For example, in “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races,” published in _The History and Geography of Human Genes_, Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza make the statement > [@](#): > > The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin. Human races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more races. To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be “lumpers” or “splitters.” Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting. In fact, the analysis we carry out…for purposes of evolutionary study shows that the level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary. Explanations are statistical, geographic, and historical. Statistically, genetic variation within clusters is large within compared with that between clusters. All populations or population clusters overlap when single genes are considered, and in almost all populations, all alleles are present but in different frequencies. No single gene is therefore sufficient for classifying human populations into systematic categories. > > As one goes down the scale of the taxonomic hierarchy toward the lower and lower partitions, the boundaries between clusters become even less clear. The evolutionary explanation is simple. There is great genetic variation in all populations, even in small ones. This individual variation has accumulated over very long periods, because most polymorphisms observed in humans antedate the separation into continents, and perhaps even the origin of the species, less than half a million years ago. The same polymorphisms are found in most populations, but at different frequencies in each, because the geographic differentiation of humans is recent, having taken perhaps one-third or less of the time the species has been in existence. There has therefore been too little time for the accumulation of a substantial divergence. The difference between groups is therefore small when compared with that of major groups, or within a single population. In addition, out species and its immediate predecessor, Homo erectus, showed considerable migratory activity in all directions, some of which are likely to have resulted in admixtures between branches that had separated a long time before. Whatever genetic boundaries may have developed, given the strong mobility of human individuals and populations, there were probably never were any sharp ones, or if there were, they were blurred by later movements. There may still exist weak genetic boundaries in some regions, but they only mean that there has been less local admixture across certain barriers. > > From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection. By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify “clusters” of populations and order then into a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modern humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one. The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider a certain level of reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race distinction. Minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other. Only “core” populations, selected because the presumably underwent less admixture, confer greater compactness to the clusters and stability to the classification tree. Although the hope of producing a good taxonomy is a lost cause - a minor scientific loss - that of reconstructing evolutionary history retains full strength and has the advantage that hypotheses can be tested on the basis of other, independent sources of data. Greater confidence in the conclusions must come from agreement with external sources of relevant evidence rather than from internal analysis. Note that while discarding the word race, they are careful to note that it is the analyst who performs the “clustering” of traits which will identify any populations. > [@Blake](#): > > I’ve already asked for a reference for this claim and you are apparently unable to provide it. As such we can safely assume that you are just making shit up. It is way too early in this discussion for you to be hauling out claims that other posters are inventing things. Back off a bit and let’s try to work toward some common understanding rather than ascribing evil intentions or faulty processes to other posters. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/31 "2006-12-18T13:37:13Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Odd. Doesn’t Biology prove that they don’t? [/QUOTE] If you say so, but I’ve been known to spot the Spaniard among several dozen also-white people. Can also spot Gypsy, French, English and Italian. Including for example that blonde American gypsy who declared me “witchy” (along with her black-haired, “lemme read your hand, emperor” looking cousin) because she normally passes for Anglo and the two of them have loads of fun about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/32 "2006-12-18T13:52:15Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] I think you may be missing a “not” in there, somewhere, unless you are saying that in 1807 there was some great likelihood of people from Western South America encountering people from Southeastern Africa to intermarry. 😛 . [/QUOTE] oops [QUOTE=tomndebb] We asked you first. 🙂 Yes. but you have not provided any concrete examples of what “traits” you believe are both shared (within a group) and exclusive to that group. You have also failed to explain how large or small a group might be while continuing to bear the nomenclature “race.”. [/QUOTE] there is the obvious: skin type and colour, eye shape and colour, hair type and colour. Then there is the average “build” of the population. As much variation as there normally is in any population, there seem to be fairly clear trends towards tall, short, slim, stocky (think swedes and inuit) Then there is facial bone structure. Flatter faces, rounded or square eye orbits, more pronounced brows and zygomatic arches, jutting jaws (think CSI) Then there are the metabolical differences as the lactose intolerance being discussed elsewhere, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, blood types and the like that are distributed differentially around the globe. The traits are not exclusive to individual groups (or at least not until someone comes with an example) but their combinations are. As for the size limits of the group to still be a race, I don’t imagine that there are any. Some groups will be small and very localized, some will be larger and more geographically widespread. Some groups might be very similar to other groups (with only a couple traits differing), some will be very unique (with either many different traits or with very uncommon trait pairs) [QUOTE=tomndebb] Those are the points to which we are objecting. If used as originally expressed in scientific literature, there were no more than three to five races. You have used examples of much smaller groups. What justifies calling the Maasai a “race” that distinguishes them from their neighbors? How likely is it that you could actually identify a Maasai as distinct from a Samburu at ten paces? How likely is it that you could distinguish a Maasai from Zulu? How large (sharing fewer and fewer traits) or small (to the point of identifying individual families) may a group be and still be recognized as a race?. [/QUOTE] forget ten paces, I could lick them and still not know which is which. My ignorance doesn’t mean the difference is not there (if it is). I guess this is where we need a large group of six-year olds with varying degrees of hurriness to see if they separate them or not. Also, you would need to consider geographical distribution, their history and the such. In the end, as you pointed out, it is in the eye of the beholder and some are splitters and some are lumpers. Are toy poodles the same race as poodles or are they just smaller members of the same group? Are napolitan and english mastiffs different races or just different colours? [QUOTE=tomndebb] It is way too early in this discussion for you to be hauling out claims that other posters are inventing things. Back off a bit and let’s try to work toward some common understanding rather than ascribing evil intentions or faulty processes to other posters. [/QUOTE] Thank you, I am not trying to push an idea on anyone. I am just a regular guy bouncing an idea around. If, in the end, I am proven wrong, then so be it. If it turns out to be a matter of opinion, then we can agree to disagree or try to recruit each other. As they say, fight the ignorance, love the ignorant. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/33 "2006-12-18T14:19:17Z")
A better question would probably be: for any given locus in the human genome, are there more useful alleles than could be contained in the ancestral population posited by X religion, unless some of those alleles are novel? - it’s essentially the question the OP is trying to ask; if there has been no evolution, how did things get to be how they are now, when that would seem to involve greater diversity than could have been present on, say, Noah’s Ark? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/34 "2006-12-18T17:36:15Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] And that demonstrates that isolated human races existed how? [/QUOTE] Dawkins point is that the concept of race correlates with consistent observable differences, upon which a broad range of observers tend to agree. There is no requirement for absolute isolation, and no need to look into the past to find these differences - they exist today, as his example demonstrates. > [@](#): > > unless your point is that such tiny populations constitute races then I fail to see exactly point you are attempting to make. My point would be that stating “I can certainly present evidence that all human groups have been mixing since our species first evolved” is dubious when counter examples are easily found. I’m not the only poster to note a decidedly snarky component to your post. It does not create the impression that you are fully confident about your position. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/35 "2006-12-18T18:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] The taxonomic and the population definitions on BrainGlutton’s link are close enough to what I have in mind. Ditto for the dog example. [/QUOTE] There is no taxonomic definition for race. It is a category below that of subspecies, and as such is neither given an official rank (it is neither above nor below other such categories, such as morph, form or variety, for example), nor is it regulated by the the ICZN. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/36 "2006-12-18T18:32:33Z")
[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch] There is no taxonomic definition for race. It is a category below that of subspecies, and as such is neither given an official rank (it is neither above nor below other such categories, such as morph, form or variety, for example), nor is it regulated by the the ICZN. [/QUOTE] I meant to say: In the link provided, there is a little table with different definitions of race. The ones that appear under the headings of “population” and “taxonomic” are the closest to what I have in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/37 "2006-12-19T00:09:10Z")
ok, let me ask this: is there any difference in what chihuahuas and St Bernards represent to the dog species and what Zulus and Inuit represent to the human species? ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/38 "2006-12-19T00:41:25Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] ok, let me ask this: is there any difference in what chihuahuas and St Bernards represent to the dog species and what Zulus and Inuit represent to the human species? [/QUOTE] Well, as far as I can tell (and, of course, I am not an anthropologist), the problem is precisely that you try to mix the dog breeds and the human “breeds”. The difference between one and the other is, of course, the non-existence (Hitler, KKK et al notwithstanding) of professional breeders of humans. Dogs are specifically bred to enhance certain traits; however humans mix freely over geographic boundaries, and, more recently, all over the world. Thus, a closer analogy would be in street dogs (no boundaries except the geographic ones, free-for-all mixing). Could you really distinguish different “dog races” in such a scenario? ---
**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:** [December 19, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/39 "2006-12-19T01:03:45Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] Several American Indian (“Native American”) nations lay claim to charming creation stories wherein The Creator bakes people out of dough. The first batch is burnt, and thrown away - those are black people. The second batch is undercooked, and likewise thrown away - those are white people. Finally, the third batch comes out perfectly GB&D (Golden Brown and Delicious) and those are The People (Indians). [/QUOTE] I’ll bet this story fits as an archaic urban legend. I first heard it from my Dutch parents in the 50s who spent had 4 years in Indonesia, only they claimed it was an Indonesian story. Seems to me that this creation story was invented by whites. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537/40 "2006-12-19T01:10:52Z")
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara] Well, as far as I can tell (and, of course, I am not an anthropologist), the problem is precisely that you try to mix the dog breeds and the human “breeds”. The difference between one and the other is, of course, the non-existence (Hitler, KKK et al notwithstanding) of professional breeders of humans. Dogs are specifically bred to enhance certain traits; however humans mix freely over geographic boundaries, and, more recently, all over the world. Thus, a closer analogy would be in street dogs (no boundaries except the geographic ones, free-for-all mixing). Could you really distinguish different “dog races” in such a scenario? [/QUOTE] My question was more on a taxonomical level. And I am not trying to mix them, I will be just as happy to see them differentiated as equaled. That said, there is a couple issues here. Firstly, I would venture that there were natural dog races (starting with wolves which most biologists will insist is the same species as the dog) before humans started to selectively breed them. For the same reasons that human populations differentiated in response to their habitat, I am sure that dogs in mountanous areas were different from plain dwelling dogs, etc. In the case of street dogs, there are no races. For the same reasons that human “races” are disappearing nowadays. They just mix too much (and I would love to have a study of street dogs in different regions of the world, btw) Although there were not professional human breeders, there were many selective pressures on different human populations, several of them created by themselves (religious and cultural tabboos, arranged marriages between clans, etc). Again, humans were not as free to reproduce with any other human as we might be nowadays. Incas married Incas and Zulus married Zulus. Hardly ever (if ever at all) Incas married Zulus. They might not have been perfectly isolated populations but the fact that there were some restrictions in the genetic flow is clearly proven by the fact that there are several very distinct “phenotypic syndromes” (which I am just making up to avoid the word “race”). My question stands, what do we call these “syndromes” and how are they similar/different from dog breeds in a taxonomic sense? (and I do understand what was said that , officially, taxonomy below subspecies is not regulated) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-evolution-is-not-true-why-are-there-different-races/384537.md?page=3)