# Is there such a biological thing as a racial group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007 "2011-04-03T03:39:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/181 "2011-04-05T01:33:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And of course, the usual: Here’s the whole paragraph: > [@](#): > > Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease. Here’s my paraphrase: “Some people get all worked up over the use of the term “race.” This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.” In other words, Gigo, you are using that quote as if it refutes what Chen is saying, but it actually supports it. These scientists are classifying people into different genetic clusters and then doing science based on that. They just aren’t calling them “races.” ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/182 "2011-04-05T01:34:37Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You may want to read this thread. No one is saying that race exists objectively. Yeah, you are. And \*\*Max the Vool \*\*is. A few simple questions: Do you know that biology is a science? Do you know that you and \*\*Max the Vool \*\* have been claiming that race has a basis in biological science? Do you understand that science is contingent on an ability of all observations to be replicated by any interested party? Do you understand that when an observation can be replicated by any interested party, that is the very definition of objective? If you knew this then you would realise that you have been claiming that race has an objective basis. I understand that science is not your strong suit, but for future reference, as soon as you claim that anything has a scientific basis then you are, by definition, claiming that it has am objective basis. You are claiming a whole lot else as well, but one of the things that you are claiming is an objective basis. If it ain’t objective, it ain’t science. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/183 "2011-04-05T01:38:36Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Look at figure 2 and the major groupings identified - Africa, Eurasia (Europe, Middle East, and Central/South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. > > [PLOS Genetics](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070) Thank you, you just proved my point perfectly. I am glad that you have conceded the point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/184 "2011-04-05T01:40:09Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Here’s the whole paragraph: > > Here’s my paraphrase: > > “Some people get all worked up over the use of the term “race.” This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.” > > In other words, Gigo, you are using that quote as if it refutes what Chen is saying, but it actually supports it. These scientists are classifying people into different genetic clusters and then doing science based on that. They just aren’t calling them “races.” Here we go again: “\*Race is a biological term used to describe subspecies of organisms. \*The physical variation in humans, though perhaps seemingly great, is genetically minimal. \*During the history of humanity, populations have never been isolated long enough to become true biological races” Your say so of “This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.”" is an “appeal to the people” it is a fallacious argument. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/185 "2011-04-05T01:45:30Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > [Ahem.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13646869&postcount=50) That does not answer the quetsion in any way at all. Can you name any two human races and any genetic test which will always work to sort them? Don’t post a link, actually name the two races then name the genetic test that I can use that will separate them with better than 90% accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/186 "2011-04-05T01:47:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yeah, you are. One quote from me should suffice to prove that. Please provide it or admit you were wrong. > [@](#): > > If it ain’t objective, it ain’t science. So if someone wanted to study whether how much TV a person watches affects some other variable, and they decided to put people into three groups (none, less than 2 hours a day, more than 2 hours a day), then any study of those groups “isn’t science”? What do you think “science” is exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/187 "2011-04-05T01:50:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Here we go again: > > \*_"Race is a biological term used to describe subspecies of organisms._ > \*The physical variation in humans, though perhaps seemingly great, is genetically minimal. > \*During the history of humanity, populations have never been isolated long enough to become true biological races" > > Your say so of “This study looks at people in different genetic clusters, and we aren’t using the term “race” for those clusters because we don’t want to piss these people off.”" is an “appeal to the people” it is a fallacious argument. The bolded part above may be the crux of our disagreement. All I’ve been saying in this thread is that people can be put into groups in accordance with their genes, and we can call those groups “races” if you want to. It seems you have in mind some definition of “race” that you feel is the accepted biological definition of race. Well, if there is such a thing, I’m not talking about it, and it’s existence doesn’t affect anything I’ve said. If all you care about is that definition of race, then you win, and we’ve been talking at cross purposes. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/188 "2011-04-05T01:51:11Z")
The term “race” is not scientific, simply because it is difficult to define who belong to what subset of humans. The term “genetical distance”, however, it is quite objective, and can be measured between any two individuals, regardless from where they are from. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/189 "2011-04-05T01:53:17Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Honestly, though, I feel like the burden of proof is to claim that my assumption is false, because it’s a pretty extraordinary claim to say that two populations (again, now, talking about “real” groups and populations, not races) who have distinct and measurable differences in a bunch of externally visible things have NO other differences. I mean, that might be true. It might be the case that whatever evolutionary pressures changed the hair and skin and height of group X absolutely positively did nothing else. But I feel like that claim needs some support or evidence. So you are arguing that if two geographically disparate groups have “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” in addition to other difference that are not “externally visible”, that is evidence that the two groups are biological racial groups? Is that a correct summation of your argument? My immediate family has “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” from at least one family in Spain or in India. Agreed? Our families will also have other difference that are not “externally visible”. Agreed? So are you arguing that each family is a biological racial group? If not then please explain why? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/190 "2011-04-05T02:02:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The bolded part above may be the crux of our disagreement. All I’ve been saying in this thread is that people can be put into groups in accordance with their genes, and we can call those groups “races” if you want to. It seems you have in mind some definition of “race” that you feel is the accepted biological definition of race. > > Well, if there is such a thing, I’m not talking about it, and it’s existence doesn’t affect anything I’ve said. If all you care about is that definition of race, then you win, and we’ve been talking at cross purposes. I said before that the popular version is not much of concern of mine. There is only a problem when people ignore what is going on in scientific circles or academia and attempt to deny that there are reasons why they do like they do. And that is even a small problem, compared to the spectacle this would be if the people of faith had grabbed on this issue like they did with creationism or ID in the schools and academia. As it is, there are no serious efforts to harass the scientists on this field for thinking “funny”. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/191 "2011-04-05T02:07:16Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > So you are arguing that if two geographically disparate groups have “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” in addition to other difference that are not “externally visible”, that is evidence that the two groups are biological racial groups? > > Is that a correct summation of your argument? > > My immediate family has “externally visible” “distinct and measurable differences” from at least one family in Spain or in India. Agreed? > > Our families will also have other difference that are not “externally visible”. Agreed? > > So are you arguing that each family is a biological racial group? > > If not then please explain why? Blake, why have you chosen “debate by hostile interrogation” as your tactic? Do you think it’s effective? Do you think that maybe it would be better if you actually read people’s posts and tried to understand what they were saying (instead of just assuming)? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/192 "2011-04-05T02:20:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > One quote from me should suffice to prove that. Please provide it or admit you were wrong. 🆒 Too easily done > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I think it’s sad that some people let a small group of idiots dictate how they think about science. Of course people can be grouped into classifications called “races.” ? Right there you said that people can be grouped into classifications called “races” based upon science. > [@](#): > > So if someone wanted to study whether how much TV a person watches affects some other variable, and they decided to put people into three groups (none, less than 2 hours a day, more than 2 hours a day), then any study of those groups “isn’t science”? What do you think “science” is exactly? 😕 WTF? I don’t think you understand what “objective” means. Data is objective if it is based upon real-world observations. This is as opposed to subjective data which exists only within the mind. Since the TV, the viewers and the device for measuring local time all exist in the physical world, and since it is is trivially easy to observe how much time someone spends watching TV, such data measurements are objective, by definition. Look, dude, the SDMB is all about fighting ignorance, but at this stage the extent of your ignorance is distracting from the topic of this thread. If you want to start another thread about what science is and what “objective” means and the difference between “subjective” and “categorical”, then please do so. I, and many others more knowledgeable than I, will be happy to enlighten you. But at this stage it is clear that you have no idea what science is \*or \*what objective means. As such you are no more than a distraction from the topic at hand. Start the new thread, and when you understand what science is, how it works and what it means when we say that something is objective then when you come back we can discuss how those things are applicable to the concept of race. But when you simply do not understand that science is contingent on objective data and that categorical data can be (and usually is) based upon objective measurements then you really lack the basic knowledge to discuss this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/193 "2011-04-05T02:25:00Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Blake, why have you chosen “debate by hostile interrogation” as your tactic? > > Do you think it’s effective? > > Do you think that maybe it would be better if you actually read people’s posts and tried to understand what they were saying (instead of just assuming)? **Rand Rover** , why have you chosen to focus on the posting style rather than the substance? Do you think that is effective in helping us to resolve whether race has any biological validity? Do you think that maybe it would be better if you actually read people’s posts and tried to understand what they were saying (instead of just assuming that you have sufficient understanding of a topic hat is clearly well outside your field of expertise)? ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/194 "2011-04-05T03:55:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, people believe that they exist. Objectively such categories do not exist. > > People from India are almost all Caucasoid, despite hundreds of millions of them [looking like this](http://southasia.oneworld.net/ImageCatalog/human-rights-lanka.jpg). People from Indonesia are almost all Mongoloid, despite hundreds of millions of them[looking like this](http://www.easttimorwomen.org/timorese_women.jpg). And people from Ethiopia are nearly all Negroid, despite hundreds of thousands of them [looking like this](http://www.dukemrestaurant.com/Entertainment/Entertainers/Ethiopian_Music_Artist%5B1%5D.jpg). > > Now the simple fact is that the Caucasoids and Mongoloids in those pictures, which are typical images drawn from Google Image search, will be identified as Negroid far more often than the actual Negroids. And we are not talking small groups here. We are talking billions of people who simply do not fit into the broad categories that you claim exist. > > So no, those categories do not exist. People like you think they exist, you want them to exist, but objectively they do not exist at all. This, I think, is key. Some posters have talked about a racial spectrum, as if people’s external characteristics change smoothly and cleanly as you move from Africa to Europe to Asia. That implies that specific boundaries might be arbitrary but there is some logic to racial distinctions. But if I understand correctly, the physical characteristics of race don’t necessarily have any connection to geography or to the genetic connections between people. In other words, two people on opposite sides of the planet can look “black” despite having no genetic connection. The only thing they share is a broad nose and dark skin. What does “race” mean if a label applies to both these people even though they have no connection beyond looks? ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/195 "2011-04-05T04:10:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > That does not answer the quetsion in any way at all. > > Can you name any two human races and any genetic test which will always work to sort them? > > Don’t post a link, actually name the two races then name the genetic test that I can use that will separate them with better than 90% accuracy. Did you click the link? Did you see the genetic analysis that separated not “races,” but _individual European subpopulations_ into clearly distinct groups? If your response doesn’t include an analysis of the post and paper in question, we shall conclude that you concede the point. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/196 "2011-04-05T04:15:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Very little, and I don’t think we should, and I certainly agree that the concept of race has done huge amounts of harm. BUT, that’s not the same as making blanket statements that race has absolutely zero biological meaning. If a system of classification is essentially arbitrary, and also has no real practical purpose in the world, then it is pretty much meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/197 "2011-04-05T04:20:28Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I think people realise that those broad categories exist, but also that within those groups you get more specific populations (ie. Japanese, Korean, What is the biological difference between Koreans and Japanese? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/198 "2011-04-05T04:20:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Google Scholar reports just 4 others citing him so far. I think someone said that science is indeed a contact sport, papers come and go, but what if counts in the end is if the paper is recognized by others as important, it is IMHO still a minority position and his expertise is in philosophy, not biology. Try thinking for yourself rather than just counting google scholar cites for the past year. Does what he’s saying make sense? Also, Edwards, who is referring to using the terms race & population interchangeably (population being more palatable for “contemporary sensitivities”), was a Cambridge geneticist. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/199 "2011-04-05T04:46:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Try thinking for yourself rather than just counting google scholar cites for the past year. Does what he’s saying make sense? Not in a Biology setting. What you have there is a philosopher trying to convince biologists to use his terms, not working much. It is just offering very weak support to a conspiracy theory. > [@Chen019](#): > > Also, Edwards, who is referring to using the terms race & population interchangeably (population being more palatable for “contemporary sensitivities”), was a Cambridge geneticist. And some astronomers still called Pluto a planet for a while, most are going now for the new definition of dwarf planet. And your insinuation still exudes “conspiracy theory”. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/200 "2011-04-05T05:26:21Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > This, I think, is key. > > Some posters have talked about a racial spectrum, as if people’s external characteristics change smoothly and cleanly as you move from Africa to Europe to Asia. That implies that specific boundaries might be arbitrary but there is some logic to racial distinctions. > > But if I understand correctly, the physical characteristics of race don’t necessarily have any connection to geography or to the genetic connections between people. In other words, two people on opposite sides of the planet can look “black” despite having no genetic connection. The only thing they share is a broad nose and dark skin. > > What does “race” mean if a label applies to both these people even though they have no connection beyond looks? Exactly. And the images I used were not selected because they were misleading. They were literally the first appropriate images of those groups that turned up in a Google image search. There really is no geographical coherence to race, unless one defines race based upon geographical coherence. But if one defines race based on geographical coherence then it has no phenotypic coherence. But if one bases race on phenotypic coherence then it loses both geographic \*and \*genetic coherence. IOW race can never refer to a group of related, physically identifiable people from a common area. Yet that is precisely what people mean when they say “race”. Or, in simpler terms, race has no objective meaning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=11)