# If "there's no such thing as race," is there such a thing as gender? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779 "2012-03-05T03:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/341 "2012-03-14T06:15:30Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Neither East Asia nor the Caucasus are continents on any conceivable sense of the word. > > So once again, you have blatantly and grossly misrepresented a reference, by claiming that the reference grouped humans according to continental origin when it does nothing of the sort. Bullshit. Read the paper or even the quotations from the paper above. Maybe if you read the paper instead of stalking as it was aptly described above, we might be able to have a reasonable debate. > [@](#): > > **Blake** So we now have a new Mod ruling that is someone clearly and plainly refuses to answer a question, and instead makes non-responsive references to what others have said, we are not allowed to ask the same question again. Try reading the thread - I answered your question. You refused to answer any of mine, and made false allegations I misrepresented Risch. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/342 "2012-03-14T06:40:44Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Bullshit. Read the paper or even the quotations from the paper above. I have. Now, some simple questions: 1. Did you claim that the paper delinaeated humans based upon continental origin? 2. Does the paper at any point delineate humans based upon continental origin? If the answer to one is “yes” (and I can easily quote where you did make that claim) and the answer to two is “No” (and I can just as easily quote where you admitted that too) then you grossly misrepresented the paper to try to make it suport your position. The only bullshit here is coming from you. Anybody who cares to read the thread can see that you claimed the paper delineated humans based upon continental origin. And they can just easily see where you admitted that it did no such thing. Hell, if they don’t want to wade through the thread, they can ask and I will provide linked quotes. > [@Chen](#): > > [If you’re talking about continental ancestry… [races map to human populations].](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14862023&postcount=283) > [@Chen](#): > > [here is the rest of the Risch et al comment in which they explain continental ancestry [races map to human populations.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14865697&postcount=330) > [@Chen](#): > > […the term continental isn’t quite accurate as they group east asians separately from caucasions.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14865787&postcount=334) I don’t think that anybody is going to be in any doubt as to who is spouting bullshit here. It’s the guy who keeps misrepresenting papers, and who has to be persued over multiple pages to make him admit that he did so. Kinda hard to deny that when you yourself admit that your claim of “continental ancestry” isn’t in any sense accurate. But like I say, please keep doing this. It’s the best support that our argument can get. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/343 "2012-03-14T06:51:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > \*\*LIST THE CRITERIA. HERE. IN THIS THREAD. _IN YOUR OWN WORDS_. \*\* That ain’t gonna happen. After 3 years, we finally got him to tell us what these races \*are \*in this thread: Asian, Black, Caucasian, Amerind and Pacific Islander. Those are the races that he claims are geographically distinct and morphologically distinguishable. But he has also been forced to admit that “Asian” race, which he told us maps to the continent of Asia, doesn’t include \*\*most \*\*of the people living in Asia. By excluding Sub-Continentals, Levantines, Central Asians and so forth, “Asian” no longer contains most actual, objective Asians. And he has been forced to concede that the “Black” race that he can distinguish morphologically is not in any sense geographically distinct or even restricted to Africa. And that is in _this thread alone_. As we always knew, as soon as he named these races that he asserts exist, it is swiftly revealed that they do not map onto either geography or morphology. Unless his position is even more ignorant than the evidence suggests, which is hard to credit, then there is no way in hell that he is going to list the actual criteria that he believes he can use to distinguish “Caucasians” from “Blacks” or “Amerinds” from “Asians”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/344 "2012-03-14T06:58:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > That ain’t gonna happen. Hope springs eternal 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/345 "2012-03-14T07:31:45Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I have. > Anybody who cares to read the thread can see that you claimed the paper delineated humans based upon continental origin. And they can just easily see where you admitted that it did no such thing. You’re not really interested in a debate are you. I mean I have explained what Risch et al said above. If you had any intention of a proper debate you would address why none of the approaches to race/sub species that I have cited above apply to humans. > [@](#): > > **Semjaazah** > > agenda which is masked by poor science and misrepresentation of any work regarding genetics or social constructions of race which can be manipulated to fit their spin. 1. I doubt that those who discuss races of maize or sea lion are pursuing any particular agenda. You may want to ask what the agenda is of those who think humans are special and don’t have patterns of variation that could also be described as races. Maybe, in fact the double standards in terms of applying races to humans and other species is due to [political correctness](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)? > [@](#): > > Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, said that the conclusion that race was not a valid concept ‘‘comes from honest and brilliant people who are not population geneticists.’’ > > ‘‘That doesn’t mean they are insincere,’’ Dr. O’Brien said. ‘‘It’s just that they haven’t really looked at it. What is happening here is that Neil and his colleagues have decided the pendulum of political correctness has taken the field in a direction that will hurt epidemiological assessment of disease in the very minorities the defenders of political correctness wish to protect.’’ 1. Before casting aspersions, take a look at some of the people claiming their are human races. I mean are [Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, Hua Tang](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/), [Jerry Coyne](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/), [Larry Moran, Mark Pagel](http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz/2008/01/changing-your-mind-maybe-human-races-do.html) and Dr O’Brien all pursuing some nefarious agenda? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/346 "2012-03-14T09:47:03Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > If you had any intention of a proper debate you would address why none of the approaches to race/sub species that I have cited above apply to humans. _You_ have yet to explain why they _should_. i.e. what the distinct differences are that allow us to delineate subspecies in humans. The criteria. List them. ---
**Author:** ![Semjaazah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b19c9b/32.png) [@Semjaazah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Semjaazah)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/347 "2012-03-14T11:03:07Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. I doubt that those who discuss races of maize or sea lion are pursuing any particular agenda. You may want to ask what the agenda is of those who think humans are special and don’t have patterns of variation that could also be described as races. Maybe, in fact the double standards in terms of applying races to humans and other species is due to [political correctness](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)? Or maybe, the jargon of race that you use is sloppy, pseudo-scientific and it’s consistency has had holes poked in it time and time again. And as other people have noted, this has been pointed out so often that it seems somewhat naive to suggest it’s merely ignorance on your part. > [@Chen019](#): > > 1. Before casting aspersions, take a look at some of the people claiming their are human races. I mean are [Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, Hua Tang](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/), [Jerry Coyne](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/), [Larry Moran, Mark Pagel](http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.nz/2008/01/changing-your-mind-maybe-human-races-do.html) and Dr O’Brien all pursuing some nefarious agenda? They are when they exist vicariously through your misrepresentation, as has been pointed out countless times here and in the pit thread. You can keep throwing their names about and then having a little chuckle of superiority to yourself because everyone knows it’s a blatant appeal to authority and that you are not properly representing their work. It might actually be an idea for someone to contact one or more of these academics and see if they agree with the nonsense you’re spouting supposedly based from their papers. I won’t continue any further to engage with this, as I know how futile it is to try to change what is essentially a facet of someone’s **politics** through science. ---
**Author:** ![IntelliQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e99b99/32.png) [@IntelliQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IntelliQ)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/348 "2012-03-14T11:44:39Z")
Well I learned something new today. I didnt know there were people who actually argued race and gender aren’t “meaningful-enough” descriptions any more. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/349 "2012-03-14T13:21:12Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > I didnt know there were people who actually argued race and gender aren’t “meaningful-enough” descriptions **any more**. From a biological standard, race has never been meaningful at all. Gender always has. What are you trying to say? ---
**Author:** ![Semjaazah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b19c9b/32.png) [@Semjaazah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Semjaazah)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/350 "2012-03-14T14:23:22Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > From a biological standard, race has never been meaningful at all. Gender always has. This^ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/351 "2012-03-14T14:29:39Z")
> [@Semjaazah](#): > > I won’t continue any further to engage with this, as I know how futile it is to try to change what is essentially a facet of someone’s **politics** through science. :mad: Futile?! Ha! Not if you’ve seen _A Clockwork Orange!_ ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/352 "2012-03-14T15:03:36Z")
**Chen019** , you are really, really hung up on that one paper by Risch et al. Here’s another for you: Zakharia, F., Basu, A., Absher, D., Assimes, T. L., Go, A. S., Hlatky, M. A., … Tang, H. (2009). Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans. Genome Biology, 10(12), R141. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141 Your pal Risch is an author in that one, and it’s from 2009 (more recent than the one you keep using as your primary hammer). It’s available on PubMed. Go ahead and take a gander and let me know what conclusions you draw from it. -a- . ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/353 "2012-03-14T23:44:38Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _You_ have yet to explain why they _should_. i.e. what the distinct differences are that allow us to delineate subspecies in humans. > > The criteria. List them. I’ve also provided definitions of race and subspecies that are commonly used in biology (O’Brien & Mayr 1991, Turtle Taxonomy 2007, Coyne etc). Using these, it seems that there are races within the species homo sapiens (humans aren’t special). Jerry Coyne writes: > [@](#): > > What are races? > > In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes. > > Under that criterion, are there human races? > > Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups. Going back to the Turtle Taxonomy: > [@](#): > > “We propose that subspecies classification, if used, should describe the major patterns of variation found within a species. A precise definition of “major” is elusive, but the formal subspecific description of small, isolated populations, particularly in low vagility species, should be avoided unless there is strong reason to do otherwise. This could avoid the proliferation of named forms of small, isolated populations such as occurred with pocket gophers in western North America (Smith and Patton (1988). (Bickham (2007). Turtle Taxonomy: Methodology, Recommendations, and Guideline).” Coyne refers to morphologically distinguishable populations. As Sesardic notes above, forensic anthropologists can distinguish major groups (for example WW. Howell’s 6 geographic regions) on the basis of morphological features. For example, cranio-facial features. Perhaps to bring this down to earth a little lets look at some sports teams. Consider some of the major populations identified by [McEvoy et al 2010](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/) (also see groups on this [graphic](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2010/08/connect-dots.html) Steve Hsu mentions): > [@](#): > > The matrix of pairwise interpopulation genetic distances (FST values) was used to construct a neighbor-joining (NJ) phylogenetic tree that summarizes the relationship of the 52 populations to each other (Figure 1A). The tree divides the populations into five broad groups: African, East Asian, West Eurasian (European, Middle Eastern, and Central and South Asian populations), American, and Oceanic. From the African group the [Nigerian soccer team](http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/nations/nigeria/teampix.jpg). The [Bantu Rovers](http://www.newzimbabwe.com/FCKEditor_Images/bantu-rovers-players550.jpg). Within the West Eurasian group, let’s look at European teams. [Russia soccer team](http://world-cup-wallpaper.com/russia/russia-football-team.html). (for fun the [victorious 1966 England team](http://s1.hubimg.com/u/1744508_f496.jpg)). Representing South & Central Asia (I note the Hap Map populations put these two groups together. If someone wants to separate out teams for Central feel free) here is the [Afghanistan cricket team](http://www.goodafghannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ayca-sept62010.jpg), [Pakistani cricket team](http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=914&bih=552&tbm=isch&tbnid=c0bXIkd61hk0BM:&imgrefurl=http://wallpaperseek.com/pakistan-cricket-team-wallpapers_w8787.html&docid=RE5CE0qQpcLoDM&imgurl=http://www.wallpaperseek.com/pakistan-cricket-team_wallpapers_8787_1152x864.jpg&w=1152&h=647&ei=jC1hT8nJG_GOiAeTmq25Bw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=323&vpy=231&dur=625&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=211&ty=140&sig=106090960412488257374&page=3&tbnh=159&tbnw=296&start=18&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:18), [Indian cricket team](http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens14664901module147756293photo_1295894996Indian-Cricket-Team-World). Representing East Asia, the [Chinese men’s soccer team](http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20080807/0019b91ec8450a0546a74d.jpg) for the Beijing Olympics. The [Japanese men’s soccer team](http://www.besoccer.com/members-of-japan-s-men-s-soccer-team-stand-before-their-men-s-gold-medal-soccer-game-against-the-united-arab-emirates-at-the-16th-asian-games-in-guangzhou-rf_86509.jpg), and [North Korean](http://newsbythesecond.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/North-korea-soccer.jpg)soccer team. Representing the American group, here is the [Columbian soccer team](http://www.colombiatravelguide.net/images/colombian_soccer_squad.jpg), [Guatemala](http://www.soccergamblers.com/images/guatemala-football-squad.jpg) and [Mexico](http://cdn.weinterrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/mexico.jpg). Representing Oceania, we have [Papua New Guinea](http://www.soccergamblers.com/images/papua-new-guinea-football-squad.jpg), [Fijian sevens team](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_T3dU6EaGbuQ/S6liCijtc2I/AAAAAAAAAAM/T8xE7U_DK7k/s320/Fiji+Sevens+Team.jpg) and [Samoan rugby team.](http://cdn4.faniq.com/images/photos/photo_large/57/2319357-1022.jpg) Are there any patterns? Any morphological differences? Anyone see what Jerry Coyne is getting at? (Note - yes these aren’t pure or fixed categories. No one said they were. You also have populations that are of mixed ancestry from different major populations - see Turkey discussed earlier. As with other races/sub-species zones of intergradation with mixed populations don’t invalidate the existence of races, it shows that you aren’t dealing with separate species). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/354 "2012-03-15T00:48:48Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So we now have a new Mod ruling that is someone clearly and plainly refuses to answer a question, and instead makes non-responsive references to what others have said, we are not allowed to ask the same question again. > > We just have to pretend that the question has been answered, even though it clearly has not. > > Interesting precedent, and one that I look forward to seeing enforced on all posters. No. We have a very old Mod ruling, (one that I have issued on several occasions in past years), that simply repeating the exact same question in multiple posts, _ad nauseam_, does nothing to further a discussion and eventually takes on an aura of harrassment. You have clearly made your point and Chen019 is clearly unwilling or unable to answer your question. I did not intervene on the second or third repetition of your post and I do not consider repeating an unanswered question to be badgering, _per se_, but there comes a point where it is time to move on and we have reached it. You may simply dismiss him; you may Pit him to your heart’s content; you may ask any other questions that you believe he should answer even if you suspect that he will be unwilling or unable to answer. Since it is clear that he cannot answer your question, (due to lack of knowledge or a personal inhibition), there is no point in continuing to badger him on the issue. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/355 "2012-03-15T01:02:14Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > (Note - yes these aren’t pure or fixed categories. No one said they were. You also have populations that are of mixed ancestry from different major populations - see Turkey discussed earlier. As with other races/sub-species zones of intergradation with mixed populations don’t invalidate the existence of races, it shows that you aren’t dealing with separate species). And this is where you and Coyne fail. Your definition depends on allopatry to be viable, but humans are clearly clinal. There are no large groups of humans who stand alone, geographically. Every group of humans has neighbors who are “mixed” with them who also have neigbors who are “mixed” with them. In order to pretend that there are morphologically distinct groups, you need to go stand in the center of any artificial group you create and then pretend that they represent some imagined whole. People from London look different from people in Beijing and people in Nairobi, but you cannot find the line where they change from one to the other because every single group merges in with the adjacent groups. One might have tried to make the case that aboriginal Australians were a “race,” (based on your definition), if those folks were not so clearly related to the folks in New Guinea. ---
**Author:** ![Semjaazah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b19c9b/32.png) [@Semjaazah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Semjaazah)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/356 "2012-03-15T01:07:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And this is where you and Coyne fail. > > Your definition depends on allopatry to be viable, but humans are clearly clinal. There are no large groups of humans who stand alone, geographically. Every group of humans has neighbors who are “mixed” with them who also have neigbors who are “mixed” with them. In order to pretend that there are morphologically distinct groups, you need to go stand in the center of any artificial group you create and then pretend that they represent some imagined whole. People from London look different from people in Beijing and people in Nairobi, but you cannot find the line where they change from one to the other because every single group merges in with the adjacent groups. One might have tried to make the case that aboriginal Australians were a “race,” (based on your definition), if those folks were not so clearly related to the folks in New Guinea. ^this ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/357 "2012-03-15T02:17:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Originally Posted by Chen019 > (Note - yes these aren’t pure or fixed categories. No one said they were. You also have populations that are of mixed ancestry from different major populations - see Turkey discussed earlier. As with other races/sub-species zones of intergradation with mixed populations don’t invalidate the existence of races, it shows that you aren’t dealing with separate species). > > **tomndebb** And this is where you and Coyne fail. > > Your definition depends on allopatry to be viable, but humans are clearly clinal. There are no large groups of humans who stand alone, geographically. Every group of humans has neighbors who are “mixed” with them who also have neigbors who are “mixed” with them. In order to pretend that there are morphologically distinct groups, you need to go stand in the center of any artificial group you create and then pretend that they represent some imagined whole. People from London look different from people in Beijing and people in Nairobi, but you cannot find the line where they change from one to the other because every single group merges in with the adjacent groups. One might have tried to make the case that aboriginal Australians were a “race,” (based on your definition), if those folks were not so clearly related to the folks in New Guinea. Where you fail is that you overlook that human genetic variation consists of clines but also clusters, which is why STRUCTURE produces clusters that are repeatable and robust. Within clusters you might get a linear or clinal increase in genetic distance, but this isn’t the case across the major clusters. For example, genetic distances for population pairs with one population (eg European or South Asia) and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Europe/South Asia or within East Asia. You get the major clusters arose because of geographic separation (oceans, the sahara desert, the himalayas etc). This reduced gene flow sufficiently to allow the morphological group differences (the kinds most people notice in the sports teams photos above), and clusters to arise. As Lahn & Ebenstein put it: > [@](#): > > Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9.\*\* During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. \*\*Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees… > > **Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5**. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a\_BX1.html](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/box/461726a_BX1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/358 "2012-03-15T04:22:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > genetic distances for population pairs with one population (eg European or South Asia) and the other in East Asia are greater than those for pairs at equivalent geographic distance within Europe/South Asia or within East Asia. Really? Let’s examine this extraordinary claim, shall we? The Andaman Islands and Tblisi, Geogia are both part of this Europe/South Asia region that you speak of. Whereas Bishkak, Kyrgistan and Tokyo, Japan are parts of Europe/South Asia and East Asia, respectively. According to Google Earth, the distance from Tblisi, Georgia to the Andaman islands is 5600km. The distance from Bishkak, Kyrgistan and Tokyo, Japan is also 5600km. So according to what you just posted above, the[inhabitants of the Andaman Islands](http://sawbonessurio.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/andaman-islander.jpg) and the [inhabitants of Tblisi Georgia](http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/Ivanishvili.jpg), are very closely related and morphologically identifiable as the same race. In contrast the [people of Bishkak, Kyrgistan](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41033000/jpg/_41033829_akaeva1_203.jpg) and the people of [Tokyo, Japan](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rMjEML5yj4w/TMY9t4IPiJI/AAAAAAAAACU/D1JS6X-E5C0/s1600/japanese+woman.jpg) are clearly not in any way related. There are no morphological or genetic similarities at all between the Kyrgistanis and the Japanese. Is this the funniest thing that anybody has ever seen? According to Chen the short, black skinned, crinkly haired, broad nosed south-Asian Andaman Islander is the same race as the tall, fair haired, blue eyed Georgian and has much, much more genetic similarity than the two nearly identical women, once from South Asia and one from East Asia. Hell Chen, I"m going to ask for a reference to support your claim that Adamanese are more closely related to Georgians than Kyrgistanis are to Japanese, just for the hell of it. But realistically, it doesn’t matter, because you claimed that for these races to be valid, they had to be morphologically distinguishable. Now that everyone can see how ludicrous it is to claim that Andamanese and Georgians are morphologically the same, while Kyrgistanis and Japanese are morphologically different, your position is revealed as being utterly ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/359 "2012-03-15T04:31:58Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Really? > > Let’s examine this extraordinary claim, shall we? > > The Andaman Islands and Tblisi, Geogia are both part of this Europe/South Asia region that you speak of… > > Is this the funniest thing that anybody has ever seen? According to Chen the short, black skinned, crinkly haired, broad nosed south-Asian Andaman Islander is the same race as the tall, fair haired, blue eyed Georgian and has much, much more genetic similarity than the two nearly identical women, once from South Asia and one from East Asia… > But realistically, it doesn’t matter, because you claimed that for these races to be valid, they had to be morphologically distinguishable. Now that everyone can see how ludicrous it is to claim that Andamanese and Georgians are morphologically the same, while Kyrgistanis and Japanese are morphologically different, your position is revealed as being utterly ridiculous. Apologies, my comment above wasn’t clear. I stated within the European or South Asian cluster, then later in the sentence referred to Europe/South Asia. I meant them as separate populations. Although, I’m glad to see that finally you seem to have realised that maybe there are morphological differences between groups with different geographic ancestry. Maybe you might be able to recognise the blindingly obvious fact that there are human races after all! You and Jerry Coyne might not be so far apart 🙂 I think you just don’t like the word race. > [@](#): > > And this despite the palpable morphological differences between human groups—differences that must be based on genetic differences and would, if seen in other species, lead to their classification as either races or subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2012, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/360 "2012-03-15T04:39:58Z")
The example of the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands reminds me of biologist Armand Leroi’s article which [mentioned them](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1). > [@](#): > > There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason - if there were not reason enough already - to value and protect some of the world’s most obscure and marginalized people. When the Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo’s jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not. > > The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans. > > Happily, most of the Andamans’ Negritos seem to have survived December’s tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear. > > Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=19)